Below are the Bay Area Reporter 's recommendations for San Francisco propositions on the November 4 ballot.
Proposition A: San Francisco Transportation and Road Improvement Bond. YES. This proposition, sponsored and strongly supported by Mayor Ed Lee, would permit the city to borrow up to $500 million through the issuance of General Obligation bonds for necessary and long needed Muni upgrades. It represents the first major investment toward an estimated $10 billion in crucial infrastructure projects to be undertaken by the city over the next 15 years that seeks to improve Muni reliability and accessibility; improve the conditions of streets; and make the roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Although these General Obligation bonds are repaid through property taxes, property taxes will not increase as there is sufficient debt already incurred (such as the library bonds) that will be retired shortly and will provide for debt service for the new Muni bonds. This is a no-brainer. Vote YES on A.
Proposition B: Adjusting Transportation Funding for Population Growth. NO. This measure is sponsored by Supervisor Scott Wiener for whom we have great respect and often agree. And we share his frustration about the slow pace of necessary Muni repairs and maintenance. But Prop B, a voter mandated set-aside of general fund monies, is not the answer. Muni is governed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and funded, in part, by a transfer of general fund revenue, the amount of which is set by the City Charter and referred to as "the base line," which this year amounts to $247.9 million. This proposition would require the city to increase the base amount by a percentage equal to the city's annual population increase, taking into account daytime and nighttime populations, as determined by the controllers office. Calculations for 2015 would increase the base amount based on population increases over the previous 10 years and then annually thereafter. As the base amount is part of the city's normal two-year budgeting process, any additional monies would come from other already budgeted items. It would leave a hole in the current city budget of some $22-$24 million. We strongly support a measured, long term approach to improving Muni, such as is contained in Prop A, and we are always encouraging city elected officials and others involved in the budget process to give greater emphasis to Muni. We don't like ballot box budgeting, however, and do not like quick fix set asides that are not part of a more global solution to Muni's problems.
Proposition C: Children's Fund; Public Education Enrichment Fund; Children and Families Council; Rainy Day Reserve. YES. This Charter Amendment would modify the way the city funds and administers services to children, youth, and their families. The Children's Fund, established by the voters in 1991, is set to expire on June 30, 2016. This proposition would extend the Children's Fund until 2041 and increase slightly the amount of the fund gradually over the next four years and also extend the age group served to include youth aged 18-24. The Public Education Enrichment Fund was established by the voters in 2004 and will expire on June 30, 2015. It helps pay for arts, music, sports, and library programs and general education in the San Francisco Unified School District. This proposition would extend the fund until 2041 and would extend funding for universal preschool to include 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds while still giving priority to 4-year-olds. This proposition also creates an Our Children, Our Families Council to advise the city and school district on the needs of children and families in San Francisco and work toward creating an Our Families Plan to create a more coordinated and efficient system of services. The city has a Rainy Day Reserve that builds up when times are good and allows for discretionary spending for the school district and other city operations. This proposition would now require that 25 percent of future rainy day deposits would go to the school reserve and provides a formula governing when the school district can withdraw from the reserve. These funds have all been successful. This non-controversial proposition preserves and refines the funds.
Proposition D: Retiree Health Benefits for Former Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency Employees: YES. In January 2009, the City and County of San Francisco established the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund (Fund) to pay for the health care costs of retirees from city service and their spouses or domestic partners. In 2012, the state Legislature dissolved Redevelopment Agencies statewide, including the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. A small number of Redevelopment Agency employees may become City of San Francisco employees. This proposition would bring their health care benefits in line with city employees of equal service similarly situated. It's a simple matter of fairness.
Proposition E: Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: YES. This is a public health measure to address the epidemic onslaught of diabetes and obesity in our American society. It imposes a 2-cent per ounce tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages. While we tend toward the libertarian when it comes to government meddling in the personal lives of people, this wave of diabetes and obesity makes such a measure necessary. As of 2010, nearly a third (31.7 percent) of children and adolescents in San Francisco were either obese or overweight. Soda is the largest single source of added sugar in the American diet, accounting for more than half of all sugar in our diet. According to the San Francisco budget analyst, San Franciscans are spending as much as $62 million a year in health care costs that are directly attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages. The revenues generated by the tax, estimated from $35 million to $54 million, are ear-marked to fund health, nutrition, physical education, and active recreation programs. While the beverage industry will fiercely fight this proposition, as it has elsewhere, a review of those supporting Prop E shows broad-based support throughout numerous communities, particularly those involved in health services, education, labor, and environment. We recommend YES on E.
Proposition F: Pier 70. YES. The city, through its Port Commission (Port) owns a 28-acre area of land roughly bounded by 20th Street, Michigan Street, 22nd Street, and the bay. After a three-year community planning process, the Port created a master plan to reuse Pier 70 and designated the 28-acre portion for development. In 2011, after a competitive solicitation, the Port selected a development partner for the site. The developer proposes a mixed-use project with residential, office, retail, and arts spaces, and public open space and recreation areas. The current building height limit on the site is 40 feet. The historic buildings on the site, however, are more than 40 feet tall, one as tall as 90 feet. This proposition is an ordinance that would increase the height limit for buildings on the 28-acre development site in the Pier 70 area from 40 feet to 90 feet. Environmental and permitting rules are not affected. Thus all other aspects of the development are subject to all city approvals and public processes. This proposition makes it city policy that the final project contain nine acres of waterfront parks and recreation areas that would provide public access to the bay; that approximately 1,000 to 2,000 new residential units be constructed; most of these units would be rental units, and 30 percent would be below-market-rate and affordable for middle- and low-income households; that the project include space for arts and cultural activities, nonprofits, small-scale manufacturing, retail, and neighborhood services and that the existing artists community be preserved; it anticipates between 1 million and 2 million square feet of new commercial and office space. Additionally, the project will create a significant number of permanent jobs and revenue to support public housing facilities. This proposal has gone through extensive review and public and neighborhood forums. Support appears to be across the board (unusual in San Francisco). We recommend YES on Prop F.
Proposition G: Additional Transfer Tax on Residential Property Sold Within 5 Years of Purchase. NO. The city collects a transfer tax on sales of most real property in San Francisco, the exact amount depending on the sales price. This proposition would impose an additional tax on the total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold within five years of purchase or transfer of as much as 24 percent, the exact percentage scaling down to 14 percent the fifth year. Prop G is a misguided attempt to address the skyrocketing rents and housing costs in San Francisco that casts its web too far and too wide. There are many legitimate reasons that an owner of a multi-unit property would need to sell his/her property within five years of purchase that have nothing to do with the speculation it seeks to stop. Moving due to death or illness for example. Or an employment opportunity in another city. Additionally, this is not a tax just on the profit from a sale. It is a tax on the entire sales price. This makes no sense at all. It would turn modest profits into devastating losses. Definitely a bad idea. Vote NO on G.
Propositions H and I: Renovation of Beach Chalet playgrounds, walking trails and Athletic Fields: NO on H; YES on I. The city's Recreation and Park Department operates and maintains Golden Gate Park. The park includes athletic fields, the largest of which are the Polo Fields and the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields. These fields are all natural grass and do not have lights. Prop H mandates that the fields remain as they are: natural grass and no lights. The fields become unusable during periods of heavy rain (which we hope we'll see a lot of this year) due to inadequate drainage. It often takes days for these muddy swamps to dry out. And no nighttime lighting seriously limits the fields use for students after school, particularly during the winter months. Rec and Park would like to be able to install an artificial turf that would have an efficient drainage system as well as install lighting. It estimates that these renovations would more than double the public's use. Prop I would amend the Park Code to permit these renovations. While everyone likes natural grass, modern artificial turf is nothing like the old green carpets used decades ago. They are grass-like with drainage systems so efficient the fields become usable again soon after the rain stops. These are necessary improvements to public spaces that will greatly increase the number of people able to enjoy them. We recommend NO on H and YES on I.
Proposition J: Minimum Wage Increase. YES. This would gradually increase the minimum wage paid in San Francisco from its current $10.74 per hour to $15 in 2018. Like the current minimum wage, it would be adjusted annually for inflation. Living in San Francisco is very expensive, and income inequality has never been greater. Forcing low- and middle-income workers to relocate outside the city and commute in to work is not consistent with San Francisco values. Losing economic diversity among our residents harms everyone. While this hike won't solve the problems of cost of living and income inequality, it is a step in the right direction. Vote YES on J.
Proposition K: Affordable Housing. YES. The mayor and the Board of Supervisors have established goals for affordable housing production and preservation based on the housing needs for low- and moderate-income households. Programs have been put in place to build and improve affordable homes, provide down payment assistance to homebuyers, and to help families and individuals stay in affordable homes and prevent displacement. When the state eliminated redevelopment agencies, a major source of funding for these programs was eliminated as well. In 2012, the voters approved a measure establishing the Housing Trust Fund to set aside a portion of the city's budget for affordable housing programs. Current levels of funding of the Housing Trust Fund are less than the revenue provided by the redevelopment agency and is likely not sufficient to fund these programs. This proposition mandates the mayor and the Board of Supervisors to create a funding strategy to build new affordable housing, to purchase land for affordable housing, to preserve existing rental units, and to fund public housing rehabilitation. Toward this end, the proposition sets as goals that the city will help construct or rehabilitate at least 30,000 homes by 2020; that more than 50 percent of the housing will be affordable for middle-class households, with at least 33 percent affordable for low- and moderate-income households; and that the city will attempt to ensure that 33 percent of new housing in areas that are rezoned to provide more residential development is affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Like the minimum wage increase, this housing policy will not solve the problem of high rents and home costs. But it is an ambitious goal that, if accomplished, will make a real difference. It is the right thing to do. Vote YES on K.
Proposition L: Policy Regarding Transportation Priorities. NO. This proposition was put on the ballot, in part, as a counter proposal to Supervisor Wiener's Prop B. We don't like Prop B as it is a voter mandate on what should be part of the normal political process with our elected and appointed officials doing what they are elected and appointed to do. We don't like Prop L for the same reason. It seeks to mandate the Municipal Transportation Agency to take actions that rightly should be part of the political and administrative process, such as setting hours and rates for parking meters; freezing fees charged at the parking garages, for parking tickets or for neighborhood parking permits; or installing additional parking meters. It is also a poorly disguised shill for motorists at the expense of cyclists and pedestrians. It mandates the creation of additional parking garages and the creation of a Motorists Citizen Advisory Committee. San Francisco needs fewer motorists and cars not more. This is bad policy all around. Vote NO on L.