There are 15 San Francisco propositions on the November 5 ballot covering everything from infrastructure to city commissions to retirement changes for first responders. Below are our recommendations.
Bonds
Proposition A: Schools Improvement and Safety Bond. YES.This measure needs 55% affirmative votes to pass. It would authorize the San Francisco Unified School District to borrow up to $790 million by issuing general obligation bonds that can be used to improve, repair, or upgrade its sites, and to build new facilities. The SFUSD is in a dire financial situation right now, and being able to borrow these bond funds would allow it to make needed changes it would not otherwise be able to afford. Vote YES on Prop A.
Proposition B: Community Health and Medical Facilities, Street Safety, Public Spaces, and Shelter to Reduce Homelessness Bond. YES. This measure needs 66.66% affirmative votes to pass. It would allow the city to borrow up to $390 million by issuing general obligations bonds for a variety of projects. Of chief interest to the LGBTQ community are two that are listed: $25 million for the renovation of Harvey Milk Plaza in the Castro neighborhood, and $28 million to relocate City Clinic, which is outdated and provides a lifeline to so many community members and other residents. There are many other important projects as well, such as $63.9 million for street and sidewalk safety projects and $66 million to repair and renovate Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center and Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, the publicly funded skilled nursing facility. With the city staring down budget deficits in the next couple of years, issuing bonds is an important way these infrastructure projects can get completed. City policy is to limit the amount of money it borrows by issuing new bonds only as prior bonds are paid off, thereby avoiding an increase in property taxes. It is strongly supported by Mayor London Breed and all 11 supervisors. Vote YES on Prop B.
Charter amendments
Charter amendments need 50% plus 1 affirmative votes for passage.
Proposition C: Inspector General. NO. This is the idea of Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin in response to recent city corruption scandals. It would establish the position of inspector general in the office of the city controller, who is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Board of Supervisors to oversee the city's financial affairs. The city charter already requires the controller to receive and investigate complaints of alleged misuse of city funds and improper activities by city officers and employees, among other items. The controller can examine the records of city boards, commissions, officers, and departments, but does not have subpoena power to require third parties, such as contractors and lobbyists, to produce documents. Prop C would allow the controller to hire an inspector general and allow the controller to subpoena documents from third parties. San Francisco has had excellent controllers who have rooted out corruption — and continue to do so. We don't think an unelected person — and the likely attending staff — is needed as an inspector general. Vote NO on Prop C.
Proposition D: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority.
Proposition E: Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions. NO on both. One of the things we love about San Francisco is that there are lots of commissions. These advisory bodies play a vital role in local government and give volunteer commissioners valuable experience, offering an opportunity for some of them to seek elected office themselves. Yes, San Francisco has a lot of commissions, but the solution is not to ride roughshod over them, eliminating many with little thought. That's the reasoning behind Prop D, spearheaded by Together SF Action, an advocacy group. Prop E, advocated by Peskin, would take a more thoughtful approach and go through a public process to determine if some commissions should be jettisoned.
According to Prop E proponents, the arts, library, health, and small business commissions would be eliminated under the more draconian Prop D. This is ridiculous. All of these bodies are critical. The health commission was resurrected in the early 1980s partly as a result of the AIDS epidemic. According to the city's "A Brief History of the Health Commission," a body was convened in the early 20th century but eventually determined to be no longer needed and dissolved. Then, in the early 1980s, when San Francisco General Hospital was at risk of losing its accreditation and AIDS was rising as an epidemic, a charter amendment was proposed in 1984 to establish a health commission and approved by voters. The modern-day commission was created in 1985. Since then, numerous LGBTQ people have served as health commissioners, alongside physicians, nurses, and others, providing a much-needed queer perspective to the Department of Public Health on issues that affect our community.
While Prop E is the better of the two, we aren't convinced that San Francisco government needs to be gutted in one of the areas it's known for: public participation by interested residents who love their city. Vote NO on Props D and E.
Proposition F: Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement. YES. This measure would establish a Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) for eligible police officers. Full-duty police officers in the ranks of officer, sergeant, and inspector who are at least 50 years old and have at least 25 years of eligible service with the department or another law enforcement agency could participate. Participants would continue to work fulltime for the department at their current salary and benefit levels. Participants must agree to perform neighborhood patrol work or conduct investigations, regardless of their previous assignment. Participants would only be allowed to participate for up to five years. The pension payments the participant would have collected upon retirement would be placed into a tax-deferred and interest-bearing account. When their DROP period ends, participants must stop work for the city and they'd receive their deferred monthly pension payments with interest. This is a solution to keeping officers in the department as the city works to recruit more sworn personnel to alleviate the staffing shortage of about 500 officers. Vote YES on Prop F.
Proposition G: Funding Rental Subsidies for Affordable Housing Developments Serving Low Income Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities. NO. Unfortunately, this is a set-aside, which means that money from the city's general fund would be earmarked for a new $8.25 million Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund for Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities. This could be adjusted 3% until fiscal year 2045-46, based on the city's revenues. The city is in a deficit mode right now, meaning it cannot afford money to be taken from the general fund for specific purposes — there's already too much of that in the budget. There is a provision in the proposal that if the city's deficit is $250 million or more, it can reduce the amount of money into the fund, but the city must contribute at least $4 million in 2026-27 and at least $8.25 million in each later year.
More importantly, however, the city already has subsidies for those who are extremely low-income. The city also provides subsidies for those who formerly experienced homelessness. The city should manage its budget and continue providing rental subsidies but without the mandate of this charter amendment. Vote No on Prop G.
Proposition H: Retirement Benefits for Firefighters. YES. This would lower the age of retirement for firefighters hired after January 7, 2012 from 58 years of age to 55, the age at which these members can receive the highest pension based on age. The reason for this change, according to the seven supervisors who voted for it, is due to the higher incidence of cancer among older firefighters. Prop H would allow firefighters to cut their cancer risk by being able to retire early. This does impact the city's fiscal situation, with increases pegged at $3.7 million in fiscal year 2025-26, and increasing through 2040-41. Firefighters have one of the most dangerous jobs in the city, and this measure would standardize the retirement age. Vote YES on Prop H.
Proposition I: Retirement Benefits for Nurses and 911 Operators. YES. This would allow eligible Registered Nurses to purchase service credit for hours they worked on a per diem basis. Prop I would also move 911 dispatchers, supervisors, and coordinators from the Miscellaneous Plans to the Miscellaneous Safety Plan for compensation those employees earn on and after January 4, 2025. As members of the Miscellaneous Safety Plan, these employees would be required to pay an increased amount into the pension plan and would receive increased pension benefits at retirement. Members of the Board of Supervisors support Prop I because there is a shortage of 911 operators and RNs. Vote YES on Prop I.
Proposition J: Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth, and Families. YES. This does not create a new fund. The city already funds services for children, youth, and their families through the Children and Youth Fund, the Public Education Enrichment Fund, the Student Success Fund, and other programs. Prop J would change the way the city evaluates funding for services to children, youth and their families by monitoring outcomes. According to proponents, it would ensure that the city and the San Francisco Unified School District plan, coordinate, and account for funding spent to improve outcomes. Vote YES on Prop J.
Ordinances
Ordinances require 50% plus 1 affirmative votes for passage.
Proposition K: Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space. NO. There are many issues with Prop K, including the fact that proponents want to build a park when they're already at the beach. But the city doesn't have millions of dollars for a park, and, as far as we can tell, there is no plan by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to mitigate the traffic issues associated with closing a portion of this vital commuter artery. The Upper Great Highway is already closed to vehicle traffic on weekends and holidays; that seemed to be a good compromise.
More to the point, Prop K shouldn't even be on the ballot. This is something that should be determined by the Board of Supervisors. The city elects its supervisors by district. In this case, gay District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio should have brought forth a plan with funding attached for his colleagues to vote on. Supervisors are elected to make the hard decisions. Passing this off to a citywide vote sets a bad precedent and leaves westside residents at the mercy of voters throughout the city. The San Francisco Chronicle recently did an informal survey on the Upper Great Highway (between Ortega Street and Noriega Street intersections) during the morning commute and the reporter was "surprised" to find that vehicles use it — 1,656 during the 8 to 9 a.m. commute on Thursday, September 5, and 467 people from 5 to 6 p.m. Friday, September 6. In short, about 3,000 vehicles use the highway during commute times. That should be no surprise.
Those who want to go to a park can visit the world-class Golden Gate Park just adjacent to the north end of the Upper Great Highway, or continue taking advantage of the vehicle-free Upper Great Highway on weekends. Vote NO on Prop K.
Proposition L: Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation. YES. This is an increase to the gross receipts tax that these companies already pay and would fund Muni, which is facing severe cuts due to the end of emergency federal funding during the COVID pandemic. The new tax rate would range between 1% and 4.5% on taxable gross receipts. (Prop L needs to get at least one more vote than Prop M in order to pass.) Vote YES on Prop L.
Proposition M: Change to Business Taxes. YES. This would greatly help small businesses as they work to recover from the pandemic. It would eliminate most small businesses with gross receipts up to $5 million, adjust business registration fees, and adjust the administrative office tax rates for certain large businesses. Proponents state that it will prevent large businesses from leaving the city and reduce business license fees for restaurants, hotels, arts venues, and neighborhood stores. (If Prop M receives more votes than Prop L, then Prop L would be voided because both change the gross receipts tax system.) Vote YES on Prop M.
Proposition N: First Responder Student Loan Training and Reimbursement Fund. NO. The city currently reimburses employees for some job-related training, but not student loans. Prop N would create a city fund with funding appropriated by the mayor and Board of Supervisors or private donations to reimburse eligible sworn police, fire, and sheriff department personnel, registered nurses, 911 operators, and other first responders. The Department of Human Resources would create a program that could provide reimbursement up to $25,000. The payments would only begin once the fund has $1 million. The problem with Prop N is that it uses public funds to pay off private debts. Vote NO on Prop N.
Proposition O: Supporting Reproductive Rights. YES. In this day and age when reproductive rights are targeted by Republicans, this ordinance would create a Reproductive Freedom Fund to accept grants and gifts to support reproductive rights and services; require the Department of Public Health to maintain a website that lists facilities that provide abortions or emergency contraception, or offer referrals for these services; and list limited services pregnancy centers in San Francisco. It would authorize DPH to post signs outside limited pregnancy centers to inform the public these facilities do not provide abortions or emergency contraception. Prop O would prohibit city officials from providing information to law enforcement agencies of other states or the federal government concerning a person's use or possession of contraception, use of in vitro fertilization, pregnancy status or choice to get an abortion; and modify the city's zoning law so that reproductive health clinics may operate in more areas of San Francisco. This is an excellent example of San Francisco values. Vote YES on Prop O.
Updated, 10/13/24: This editorial has been corrected. For Prop H, it should be firefighters hired after 2012.
Never miss a story! Keep up to date on the latest news, arts, politics, entertainment, and nightlife.
Sign up for the Bay Area Reporter's free weekday email newsletter. You'll receive our newsletters and special offers from our community partners.
Support California's largest LGBTQ newsroom. Your one-time, monthly, or annual contribution advocates for LGBTQ communities. Amplify a trusted voice providing news, information, and cultural coverage to all members of our community, regardless of their ability to pay -- Donate today!