PROP A: ❌ VOTE NO

SFUSD $790M Bond

FINANCIAL IMPACT: With interest, this $790M in debt will ultimately cost us $1.3B. More info here

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: We don’t trust the majority of this Board of Education (and potentially unknown BOE members after the election) to manage this expensive bond any differently from the previous two which left major improvements undone in favor of renaming schools and cutting algebra from the curriculum.

Supporting education is a core value of ours, so we really want to support this bond. We have had two prior bonds (2011 & 2016) that were earmarked to address these very issues and we cannot find a complete accounting of the money from those bonds.  Public records show work has stopped on several projects, with some of the money being reallocated to other projects that still have yet to materialize, leaving us with lot of unanswered questions It’s hard to tell taxpayers to pony up more money when significant sums have apparently been reallocated and those projects are delayed!  

This is a classic SF measure where our hearts and our heads are in conflict. Our head says voting for this bond should worry every San Franciscan this election: incompetence, grift, poor planning on projects, and concern over where all the 2016 money we taxpayers dedicated to this issue went. Our heart reminds us that public schools are important and rely on bonds for the funds to make improvements. 

Let’s walk through it: In 2011 and 2016, we voted in multi-million bonds specifically for school improvements/modernizations. Those bonds affected 44 schools with 4 “in progress.” The $744 million from the 2016 bond were used to renovate 14 libraries, 16 kitchens, remove 22 portable classrooms, and add 44 new classrooms at various school sites. That’s it folks. That is an average of $10M per classroom, kitchen or library - that’s wildly out of whack.  Other projects were deferred leaving parents, students and employees questioning what happened and what will happen with this bond. 

Ok, some progress is better than no progress! But let’s look at this current bond. The current bond earmarks $395M for modernization projects including upgrading restrooms, classroom repairs and ongoing construction for a new school in Mission Bay set to open in August 2025. ONE as of yet undecided high school in the Mission District would also receive funding for a large scale modernization project. Seven as of yet unidentified schools will be funded for smaller scaled projects. The rest of the funds will be allocated toward meal services (one food hub costing $225M), schoolyard improvements and security upgrades. Hopefully all schools will receive security upgrades.  

So, where does this leave us? All children deserve to learn in safe, modern facilities and many of the current SFUSD schools do not meet those basic standards. Due to inhospitable learning environments, enrollment in SFUSD has plummeted and some schools are now facing closure. Clearly something needs to lift our public schools out of the doom loop they’re currently experiencing.  We believe that perhaps this bond should be revisited after the November election to see if more fiscally responsible leaders are elected to the Board who can avoid further mismanagement and unfinished projects.

PROP B: ❌ VOTE NO

Community Health and Medical Facilities, Street Safety, Public Spaces, and Shelter to Reduce Homelessness $390M Bond

*This measure requires 66.66% affirmative votes to pass, unless State Prop 5 passes, then 55%.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: With interest, this $390M in debt will ultimately cost us $737M. More info here

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: Debt is not free, SF has a looming deficit and this expensive promise of more funding to transportation and housing special interests in an election year is suspect.

This is an election year kitchen sink, Hail Mary to spend money outside the budget and curry favor with some voters.  This bond measure targets everything from hospital infrastructure, to housing, to “street safety” which might be code for bike lanes or the closing of more streets to cars, and the list goes on.  First of all, with that big a “to do” list it doesn’t seem like $390M will cover it and may lead to more unfinished projects (which City Hall is known for).  Not to mention, this is expensive debt to take on when the city is facing a nearly $1B deficit. It’s also quite likely that this is an egregious attempt by Mayor Breed, in an election year, to try to placate every group on every issue to get their votes. Homeowners should know that while the passage of this bond may not raise property taxes, they would be lowered if this doesn’t pass. And renters should know, this measure authorizes landlords to pass 50% of any property tax increase this bond may cause on to their renters. In sum, since the bond didn’t include pandas, AND it is fiscally indefensible and politically motivated, we are inclined to VOTE NO.

Note: Assembly Member Matt Haney, State Senator Scott Wiener and others have put State Prop 5 on this ballot to make it EASIER to pass bonds like this throughout California, so please VOTE NO on Prop 5 while you are at it.

PROP C: ✅ VOTE YES

Inspector General

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Cost neutral

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: We are all for ANY and ALL anti-corruption measures that help ensure our hard earned tax dollars go where they belong.

This amendment would call for a 5 year appointment (subject to mayoral and approval of eight members of the Board of Supervisors) of an Inspector General position which would be centralized under the Controller and whose sole focus would be on government waste, fraud and corruption.  This entity would have broad powers but limited scope.

The real bite in this proposal is that unlike other non-law enforcement officials such as the Ethics Commission, or Civil Grand Jury, the IG would have expanded subpoena power.

City investigators can already compel cooperation from city employees but a voter-approved IG would be able to compel cooperation from government contractors and subcontractors receiving city funds as well.  YES, THAT INCLUDES NON-PROFITS.  Housing this position within the office of the controller makes it a cost neutral position. VOTE YES.

PROP D: ✅ VOTE YES

City Commissions and Mayoral Authority

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Cost savings from $350K to $630K annually

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: There are some very real logistical issues with this measure such as concerns about picks for the task force and looking into which commissions get the axe, but cutting commissions is a necessity and if this gets that done while maintaining the commissions we must have, we will vote for it.

This measure takes aim at reducing the number of Commissions currently operating in San Francisco from roughly 130 to 65.  We say yes, a thousand times yes, to reducing bloated, unnecessary and often unaccountable agencies, but let’s be clear there is no stated criteria for cutting or keeping a commission in this measure which could have haphazard and unforeseen consequences. This also leaves the decision up to 5 people who were picked by the same folks in CIty Hall who allowed these commissions to get out of hand in the first place, so there’s that.

We are generally not comfortable with a privately funded organization putting measures on the ballot, particularly ones that cut commissions that were voted into existence by us voters. However, it’s great that this measure also prohibits commissioners from receiving healthcare or compensation from the City and we also respect that this measure snuck in giving the authority back to the Mayor for hiring and firing department heads.

It’s rare that we get to vote on anything that actually saves the City money, so that alone is a reason to VOTE YES.

PROP E: ❌ VOTE NO

Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Minimal impact on cost to government

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: We don’t think we need a task force to tell us we need to reduce commissions and given that this body would have until 2026 to make recommendations, it’s likely a task force “to nowhere.”

This Charter Amendment would establish a “Commission Streamlining Task Force ''charged with making recommendations to the Mayor and BOS about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine the City’s appointive boards and commissions to improve the administration of City government; require the City Attorney to prepare a Charter Amendment to implement the Task Force’s recommendations relating to Charter commissions, for consideration by the BOS; and authorizes the Task Force to introduce an ordinance to effectuate its recommendations relating to appointive boards and commissions codified in the Municipal Code, which ordinance shall go into effect within 90 days unless rejected by a ⅔ vote of the BOS.” 

All this word salad does is create a layer of bureaucracy that STILL has to be presented to the BOS for approval. Given that the BOS is a huge part of the commission problem and they've had years to deal with this, we just don’t see it ever getting off the ground since the TASK FORCE HAS UNTIL 2026 to make recommendations! VOTE NO.

Note: Peskin added the following language at the end of his measure:

“In the event that the other measure or measures shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes than this measure, the provisions of this measure shall take effect to the maximum extent permitted by law.”  We don’t see how this will materialize in practical terms if this measure were to lose or both gain above 50%, but we felt we should point it out for voter consideration.

PROP F: ✅ VOTE YES

Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Exact cost will depend on individual officers’ retirement decisions. Impact ranges from $300K in savings to $3M in costs annually.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: This is a cost we believe is a necessary corrective measure to incentivize officers to delay leaving the force in retirement while increasing recruitment all without coming out of the General Fund.

Public safety is the number one concern of neighborhood group members so this Charter Amendment, despite the costs, is something we support. Let’s remember $120M was redirected from the SFPD budget in 2020 which had a major impact on the force.

Additionally, a hostile Police Commission and COVID paved the way for a lot of attrition, early retirements and decrease in recruitment. The reasons for our diminished SFPD staffing numbers are numerous but they are not a mystery and we can take concrete steps to correct them.  This measure is a first step.  It aims at restoring minimum SFPD staffing levels (2,074), establishing a deferred retirement incentive to aid SFPD in retention and recruitment as well as accelerate expanded police deployments (DROP).

Officers who participate in this program will be stationed for patrol functions in the field or assigned to investigations – the program is not available to Captains and Lieutenants. With SFPD down 500 officers and many more heading to retire this year, we applaud every effort to stop the hemorrhaging of our SPFD, and keep officers deployed so public safety can truly become a reality.  VOTE YES.

PROP G: ❌ VOTE NO

Funding Rental Subsidies for Affordable Housing Developments Seriving Low Income Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities

FINANCIAL IMPACT: A new set aside for $8M annually.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: It’s a nice idea, but we need big thinking, major housing reforms and budget flexibility instead.

We were interested in this measure because it does a few things we like: it aspires to help low-income seniors, people with disabilities, and families, AND it doesn’t rely on building more housing. This measure puts the control for finding housing directly in the target demographic hands where it belongs via an existing voucher program. Sounds noble, effective and like a measure we can stand behind.

HOWEVER, this initiative, aimed at establishing a fund from the General Fund, solely dedicated to senior and low income housing is overly prescriptive and locks our budget into at least $4M even in a bad fiscal year.

The measure would not kick in until 2026, which signals to us that the initial cost of $8.25 million might not be feasible in our current City budget. With an upcoming election, and an unknown Board of Supervisors composition, there is no guarantee our budget will be in any better shape in 2026 or that we will have more fiscally responsible Supervisors on the Board. Increasing the amount every year until the measure sunsets in 2040, makes this costly measure even less attractive. VOTE NO.

PROP H: ❌ VOTE NO

Retirement Benefits for Firefighters

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increase costs starting at approximately $3.7 million in FY 2025-26 and increasing every year through fiscal year 2040-2041

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: Adding millions of dollars to the budget for a measure that does nothing to stop firefighters' increased risk of getting cancer on the job isn’t prudent in this budget cycle.

This measure is aimed at lowering the age of retirement for firefighters from 58 years old to 55 years old for collection of full benefits. The longer a firefighter is on the job the higher their rate of cancer is and this measure believes the solution is to shorten the length of time on the job. Less time on the job already happens with SFFD, as SF firefighters already work 10% less than their peers nationally.

Per the Controller’s report, the estimated cost of the proposal in the first year is $3.7M, with costs increasing through the 16th years due to higher employer contributions paid by the City. “The cost does not include the potential need to hire more firefighters as the older ones will be newly incentivized to retire earlier.”

We love firefighters but is this really the solution? Shouldn’t we be putting effort into figuring out ways for firefighters not to get cancer in the first place through more focused efforts on work conditions, requiring them to wear safety gear, better safety gear? Additionally, lowering the retirement age for firefighters will strain the retirement fund as it is not designed to absorb this type of change. We want to vote yes to solving the actual problem and since this measure doesn’t do that and adds millions to our budget, we have to vote NO.

PROP I: ✅ VOTE YES

Retirement Benefits for Nurses and 911 Operators

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increased costs to the City ranging from $3.8M to $6.7M annually in the first year, with annual costs increasing over time.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: Tough call re: budget impact, but equalizing access to the retirement fund for 911 operators, is a no brainer. We wish that there was more demonstrable evidence that this measure will address the nursing shortage.

Another measure swirling around the public safety retirement fund, and one of two that are leveraging retirement benefits to lure and retain public safety employees, is a bit more complicated. This measure allows for hard working 911 Operators to receive equal retirement benefits by being classified as public safety workers. The goal is to make recruiting and retention more attractive to nurses and 911 operators by making the retirement fund more equitable and accessible.

Prop I also asks voters to allow eligible registered nurses to purchase up to three years of service credit towards the CIty’s retirement system. The idea is that this would create an incentive for nurses to work for the City as they would now be allowed access to its retirement fund. The cost of this measure with respect to nurses ranges from $3.8M-$6.7M annually in the first year with annual increases over time.  The cost of the 911 Operator piece would add $2.3M starting in 2025/26 and would increase each year with payroll. 

This is different from the SFPD measure and here are some of our considerations: the nursing shortage is a nationwide issue with no end in sight. The reasons for it are unknown and we just can’t know if this will fix it given the fact that the shortage has been going on for over 30 years. Unlike the SFPD staffing issues which have clear causes and solutions, this added expense to our budget feels less justified during this cycle.

Equalizing access to the retirement fund for 911 operators is a no brainer and we wish the measure stopped there. As for the nursing piece, we are torn. On the one hand, we are not sure added risk to the retirement fund and the added combined almost $9M will make a difference, but if this has even a small shot at increasing staffing for nursing we think it is worth the try. Tough call and we have landed on voting YES.

PROP J: ✅ VOTE YES

Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth and Families

FINANCIAL IMPACT: A complicated reallocation of funds to support existing Student Success Fund. More here.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: This charter amendment ensures better monitoring of the the city funds that are allocated to certain programs that support SFUSD students

This measure hopes to amend the City Charter to create an initiative (Our Children Our Families) to coordinate efforts by City departments and SFUSD to deliver outcome based services for children, youth and families. This initiative will require the use of a measurable and objective outcome framework to evaluate the budget and spending of each City department that has funding eligible for the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF). The City contributes annually to the PEEF fund with ⅔ of the money allocated to SFUSD. Half these funds are mandated to go toward sports, libraries, the arts and music and half supports “other general uses.”  We find it “shocking”  that there is a program that doesn't have objective metrics in place to track funds and outcomes, but better late than never. VOTE YES.

PROP K: ❌ VOTE NO

Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Per Controllers Analysis, a savings of $350K to $700K annually IF the road is ONLY closed and not used for ANY purpose (i.e. will be covered in sand in 6 months) According to the SFMTA, permanently closing UGH to cars (Prop K), is far more costly than opening the road.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: The vague promise of an extra park (next to a park and a beach) fails to justify the severe disruption to residents and traffic patterns. This is yet another land grab of a functioning roadway, already successfully shared by cars, bikes and pedestrians, by tech elites who want to eliminate cars in San Francisco.

Let’s begin with this measure’s fraudulent name, which is designed to make us believe this measure establishes a park - IT DOES NOT.

There is no funding in Prop K for a park which, if it were included in the measure, would cost upwards of $100M to build and an undetermined amount to maintain in perpetuity.

What Prop K DOES establish is an abandoned road (ripe for RVs and encampments) which will divert 20K commuters onto neighborhood streets that are not equipped for a high volume of cars and create dangerous traffic and polluting congestion. 

A very serious and important FACT to consider is: In 2025, 19th Avenue will undergo a significant repaving project scheduled for Spring. This extensive repair work will cover both the southbound and northbound sections of the road, stretching between San Francisco State University and Golden Gate Park. Can you imagine simultaneously shutting down the Great Highway AND 19th Avenue to thousands of commuters, students getting to school, veterans needing medical care just trying to get to where they need to go - with inadequate public transit options? This is simply not tenable for folks who live on the West side of the city and will create nothing but gridlock, frustration and more dangerous conditions on our streets. The repaving of 19th is scheduled to last until 2027 which, as we know from all other transit projects, could be endless. (We also think it is noteworthy that the sponsoring Supervisors themselves do not have to commute south of SF.)

According to an extensive analysis performed by the SFMTA, Prop K, by permanently closing UGH to cars, will cost over $11M in initial capital and a minimum of $1.6M annually to maintain the roadway for emergency vehicles and recreation, more if park features are added. On the other hand, the cost to make upgrades to fully open the road would be only $7M in capital and $1.5M annually. The Controller’s analysis only addressed “not doing anything with the road” (allowing it to disappear under sand) if it is to be used for ANY purpose, there is a cost, and the cost of closing it is far more expensive than keeping the road open to cars.

Prop K is another blatant, unnecessary and costly street closure funded and supported by the anti-car groups in the city.  We stand with the working/commuter class, the elderly, the disabled, busy parents and everyone else who can’t just ride a bike and spend time frolicking because they have to earn a living.  VOTE NO!

PROP L: ❌ VOTE NO

Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation

FINANCIAL IMPACT: New gross receipts tax could result in additional revenue of approximately $25M annually.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: This tax would barely help SFMTA’s fiscal problem and will definitely increase fares for rideshare and Waymo users.

We could just write “NO MORE TAXES'' on this one, but we think you will want a little more explanation as to why this measure definitely does NOT get our vote. 

This anti-car tax will, of course, be passed on directly to the consumers of LYFT and UBER and all rideshares increasing the price of getting around the city.  This is unfair if you think about it –we often use those services only because SFMTA has taken away so many parking spots. Worse, still, is the fact that this tax will not close the $40M gap between the 2026 proposed $2B measure and the current MUNI deficit. So we don’t see the point. 

Additionally, we already voted for an increase for this exact reason in 2019 and all it did was increase our costs while SFMTA continued to pursue its ideological vanity projects abandoning its fiscal responsibility to ensure clean, safe and reliable public transit. 

SFMTA has increased it’s own budget year over year despite lack of funds - no way should anyone be funding this incompetent and irresponsible team. 

Get a new board and a new director who focuses on improving safety and reliability of MUNI and then we’ll talk. Hard pass. VOTE NO.

Note: As usual with all fun new taxes passed in San Francisco, “the Board of Supervisors may amend the tax by a two-thirds majority vote without a vote of the City’s electorate.”

P.S. Check out the display of incompetence in this SFMTA Board Meeting budget discussion from 4/16/24.

PROP M: ✅ VOTE YES

Changes to Business Taxes

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Between FY 2024-25 and FY 2026-27, the measure is projected to reduce revenues by approximately $40M annually. FY 2029-30, it is projected to continue to generate additional revenue of approximately $50M annually.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: Changes to gross receipts taxes will help small businesses while stabilizing tax rates for large companies. It’s imperfect but we need some incentives to keep businesses of all sizes in San Francisco.

Revitalizing our downtown is a top priority for many of us. Currently there are two disincentives to doing business in SF for employers. One is the structure of gross receipt tax which incentivizes lower numbers of in person workers located in SF. The second problem is “overpaid executive tax” (OET) which is when the CEO of a company is paid some multiple more than the median based salary of their employees in SF. A large portion of that tax is paid by 5 CEOs of 5 companies.

Prop M will likely bring in less revenue for the city in the first few years but ultimately make San Francisco’s revenue less dependent on a handful of companies over the long term, which is a good thing for revenue stability.

This measure would change current law regarding the business gross receipts tax so that certain companies’ taxes would be assessed on sales instead of on-site headcount. Prop M would cut taxes for many small businesses while making it more attractive for large ones to stay in San Francisco.

If changes were made to this reform so that only a portion of the tax is based on people working IN San Francisco in an office to reflect a portion the company SELLS in SF, and the changes to OET were more inviting to large companies we think it would be a better, more effective measure.  However, never ones to let the perfect get in the way of the good we are inclined to vote yes on this because it is better than the status quo. VOTE YES.

PROP N: ✅ VOTE YES

First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Cost neutral for now. If policymakers choose to fund this program for $1M or more, costs for staff to administer the fund could range from $125K to $315K annually.

OFFICIAL DIGEST Click here

BOTTOM LINE: City Hall would like to have a way to collect private donations to help pay for student loans and training costs for full time first responders who have worked for the City for at least 3 years.

This measure would establish a fund to pay outstanding student loan and job-related education and training expenses for first responders. Employees of the police department, fire department, and sheriff’s department qualify for the fund as well as 911 operators, nurses and paramedics.

The goal is to start with $1M to forgive up to $25,000 newly hired first responders after 3 years of service.  The plan is to raise $25M through private philanthropy and “cost saving measures.”

First responders are the folks who are putting their necks on the line for our safety. With severe shortages in these areas, a helping hand will undoubtedly draw in and retain more candidates.  We think this is a solid way to spend money and a valid reason to finally make those “cost saving” measures.  VOTE YES.