sf.citi Voter Guide: November 2020 Election in San Francisco

Prop A: Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond

Sponsored By: Mayor London Breed, Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: Senator Scott Wiener, Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu, Assemblymember David Chiu, Assemblymember Phil Ting, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Parks Alliance

Notable Opposition: Libertarian Party of San Francisco, San Francisco Taxpayers Association

If passed, what will Prop A do? Proposition A willl authorize the City to borrow up to $487.5 million in bonds to fund services and projects for homelessness and mental health, street improvements, and parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities. The City expects to pay back the bond’s principal and accrued interest of $960 million within the next 30 years.

Due to San Francisco’s debt management policy, the City is able to keep the property tax for bonds below the 2006 rate only by issuing new bonds as prior bonds are paid off. However, if needed, the estimated tax required to fund this bond would result in an average property tax rate increase of $10.66 per $100,000 for 30 years starting in the fiscal year 2021-2022. Landlords would be able to pass up to half of this property tax increase onto tenants.

Talk to me about the $$$. The $487.5 million in bonds will be divided accordingly: $207 million to fund mental health and homelessness needs, which includes expanding the number of treatment beds and permanent supportive housing options, among other services; $239 million to support park projects that already includes $54 million for the renovation of Chinatown’s Portsmouth Square, $30 million for the Gene Friend Recreation Center, and $29 million for a waterfront park in India Basin; and $41.5 million towards improving and repaving curb ramps, City streets, and plazas.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
In the wake of the public health crisis and economic downturn, City leaders came together to put forward this $487.5 million bond to provide much-needed funding for areas heavily impacted by COVID-19. The City took one of the safest and most reliable routes to secure new funding by choosing to raise this money through a bond. At sf.citi, we support these collaborative proposals that fund vital City services and programs without raising taxes. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition A.

Note: This measure needs a two-thirds supermajority to pass.

Prop B: Department of Sanitation and Streets, Sanitation and Streets Commission, and Public Works Commission

Sponsored By: Supervisors Matt Haney, Aaron Peskin, Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen, Ahsha Safai, Shamann Walton

Notable Supporters: District Attorney Chesa Boudin, Public Defender Mano Raju, Board of Education President Mark Sanchez, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Labor Council

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Republican Party, San Francisco Taxpayers Association

If passed, what will Prop B do? Proposition B will amend San Francisco’s Charter to create the Department of Sanitation and Streets. This new department will take over some of the responsibilities currently handled by the Department of Public Works (DPW) and will be solely dedicated to cleaning and maintaining the City’s streets, sidewalks, and public spaces. Not only will the Department of Sanitation and Streets take on some of DPW’s responsibilities, but 835 of the 1,711 employees currently working for DPW will be moved to the new department.

This measure will also create two five-member commissions, the Sanitation and Streets Commission to oversee the new Department of Sanitation and Streets, and the Public Works Commission to oversee the Department of Public Works.

Talk to me about the $$$. The creation of a new department and two five-member commissions will cost the City of San Francisco anywhere from $2.5 to $6 million a year—starting in the fiscal year 2022-2023. In the following years, costs will likely continue to increase as positions created by the measure are filled, including a department head and other managerial positions.

sf.citi recommendation: No
The main purpose of this measure is to create a new City department that would be solely responsible for the state of our streets. While we do not dispute that the state of our streets is in desperate need of more cleaning and maintenance, most of these responsibilities currently fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. Considering the City’s severe budget deficit, we at sf.citi believe it is not sound policy to spend an additional $2.5 to $6 million of City funds to create a new, non-essential bureaucratic entity. We recommend voting “no” on Proposition B.

Prop C: Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies

Sponsored By: Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: San Francisco Democratic Party, United Educators of San Francisco, Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Republican Party

If passed, what will Prop C do? Proposition C will amend San Francisco’s Charter by removing the requirement that states that any person serving on a City board, commission, or advisory body must be a registered voter and U.S. citizen. The measure will still require that members serving on these policy bodies be residents of San Francisco and of voting age unless the Charter or specific ordinance sets a different rule.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
This measure would remove extraneous barriers to access and foster increased civic participation for more San Francisco residents. We at sf.citi are fully committed to and supportive of any measure that prioritizes the advancement of equity in our City. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition C.

Prop D: Sheriff Oversight

Sponsored By: Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: District Attorney Chesa Boudin, Public Defender Manu Raju, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Labor Council

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Taxpayers Association

If passed, what will Prop D do? Proposition D will amend San Francisco’s Charter to create a Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) and a seven-member Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board (SDOB).

The OIG will be an independent City department with one investigator for every 100 sworn employees of the Sheriff’s Department. They will have the power to review uses of force by the Sheriff’s Department, investigate certain complaints regarding Sheriff’s Department employees and contractors, and recommend disciplinary actions for the Sheriff’s Department to take, among other things.

In its main role, the SDOB will oversee the OIG and make at least four reports a year to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors about OIG’s activities. The oversight board will also have the power to appoint, evaluate, renew, and remove the Inspector General.

Talk to me about the $$$. On an annual basis, the SDOB will cost $400,000 and the OIG will cost $2 to $2.5 million to staff and operate.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Amid ongoing national movements demanding greater justice and accountability among law enforcement, San Francisco has been at the forefront of cities committed to police reform. sf.citi fully supports the City’s efforts to bring increased oversight and transparency to misconduct by law enforcement. As such, we recommend voting “yes” on Proposition D.

Prop E: Police Staffing

Sponsored By: Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: Bar Association of San Francisco, Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Republican Party, San Francisco Taxpayers Association

If passed, what will Prop E do? Proposition E will amend San Francisco’s Charter by removing the requirement that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) maintains a minimum of 1,971 full-duty police officers. Instead, Proposition E would establish a new evaluation process for police staffing. The measure would require SFPD to submit a report and recommendation regarding staffing levels every two years to the Police Commission.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Currently, the San Francisco Police Department adheres to a minimum staffing number approved by the voters in 1994. At sf.citi, we believe that the efficacy of policy should be re-examined and amended if it is no longer reflective of current needs. We support this measure because police staffing requirements should be informed by relevant and current data. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition E.

Prop F: Business Tax Overhaul

Sponsored By: Mayor London Breed, Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: San Francisco Labor Council, United Educators of San Francisco, San Francisco FireFighters Local 798, National Union of Healthcare Workers

Notable Opposition: Libertarian Party of San Francisco, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

If passed, what will Prop F do? Proposition F is a Charter amendment that will amend San Francisco’s business and tax regulations. In order to achieve this overhaul, San Francisco will phase out the payroll expense tax and increase the gross receipts tax (GRT) rates for certain industries over several years. Some industries will not see tax hikes until 2024, including retail, arts organizations, restaurants, manufacturing, and hospitality businesses. Other companies in tech and financial services, meanwhile, will face the steepest increases, with 10 percent tax hikes starting in 2022 and increasing five percent each year through 2024. This translates to tech and financial service companies paying an additional $43 million in annual taxes by 2024.

Proposition F also seeks to provide relief to small businesses. The measure will reduce the annual business registration fee for businesses with $1 million or less in San Francisco gross receipts and increase the small business exemption ceiling for the GRT to $2 million. At the same time, it will increase the annual business registration fee on businesses benefiting from this increased ceiling.

Talk to me about the $$$. If passed, the GRT increase will eventually add up to $97 million of new revenue annually for San Francisco, according to City Controller Ben Rosenfield. In addition to the revenue raised from the tax increase, the measure would unlock roughly $300 million raised from the two 2018 Proposition C measures. Also known as Big C and Little C, these 2018 measures increased the GRT on companies to specifically support homeless relief efforts (Big C) and fund childcare and early education programs (Little C). Because these measures were placed on the ballot through voter initiatives and passed with 50 percent of the vote rather than the two-thirds threshold required for dedicated tax measures, they were challenged in court. The City has since collected the money that would be generated by the two Proposition C measures but has been unable to spend it due to the pending court cases.

* *Update: On September 9, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City and validated Big C. Unless an appeal is made—and the chances of that happening are slim to none—the City can begin spending the money raised by Big C. The money raised by Little C, on the other hand, will remain unusable until that court decision has been made.

sf.citi recommendation: No
Considering the current economic recession and the continued economic volatility of the pandemic, sf.citi does not support the imposition of additional burdens on the business community by way of tax increases. If fully implemented, these tax increases would impose a tax rate on San Francisco’s tech industry that is nearly double that of other comparable cities, such as Seattle.

Many companies across the City, including tech companies, have faced layoffs in the thousands, while the City has yet to implement similar measures for City employees and continues to expand the City budget to nearly $14 billion dollars. Furthermore, these tax increases come at a time when many businesses have an opportunity to relocate out of the City. Even before the pandemic, many notable companies were moving out of San Francisco due to the high cost of living, expensive office space, and challenging business climate. Now as companies shift to remote work—some permanently—the decision to leave or downsize in San Francisco may become commonplace, especially as companies weigh the cost of this additional tax burden.

sf.citi does not take this decision lightly, and while we are steadfast in our support of the City during the COVID-19 crisis, we believe that the passage of Proposition F will carry grave consequences for many years to come. We believe tax hikes to this degree will ultimately give many companies no choice but to leave the City, thereby creating a significant shortage of tax revenue and creating subsequent cutbacks of City services. For the reasons above, we recommend voting “no” on Proposition F.

Prop G: Youth Voting in Local Elections

Sponsored By: Mayor London Breed, Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: President of the Board of Education Mark Sanchez

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Republican Party, San Francisco Taxpayers Association

If passed, what will Prop G do? Proposition G will amend San Francisco’s Charter to allow 16- and 17-year-olds that are San Francisco residents and U.S. citizens to vote for local candidates and ballot measures. It will not, however, allow them to vote for state ballot measures or state and federal candidates.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Expanding voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds gives them a voice on issues that directly affect them like education and transportation. It also builds a habit of voting at an early age. Expanding local representation and encouraging civic participation as early as possible is a core belief of sf.citi. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition G.

Prop H: Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting

Sponsored By: Mayor London Breed

Notable Supporters: Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember David Chiu, Assemblymember Phil Ting, Board of Equalization Member Malia Cohen, Supervisor Shamann Walton, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, San Francisco Council of District Merchants, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Democratic Party, Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Republican Party

If passed, what will Prop H do? Proposition H will amend the Planning Code for neighborhood commercial districts to simplify opening and operating a small business in San Francisco. The measure includes a number of changes intended to help small businesses, but it’s main goal centers around expediting the approval and inspection process for permits and increasing the types of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Additionally, it will expand the use of outdoor areas in certain businesses, eliminate the public notification process for people who want to start a permitted use, give pop-up retail the ability to use empty storefronts, and allow restaurants to provide workspaces to the public.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Even before the pandemic hit, it was already incredibly difficult to open and operate a small business in San Francisco. The permitting process, in particular, had been signaled out as a cumbersome and expensive bureaucratic system on small business owners. City leaders proposed this measure as a way to remove these extraneous barriers and incentivize much-needed business growth in our communities. If the City does not act soon, many small businesses will be completely wiped out, which is why sf.citi is fully behind providing this support to San Francisco’s small businesses, the backbone of our local economy. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition H.

Prop I: Real Estate Transfer Tax

Sponsored By: Supervisors Dean Preston, Gordon Mar, Matt Haney, Hillary Ronen, Shamann Walton

Notable Supporters: Assemblymember Phil Ting, District Attorney Chesa Boudin, Public Defender Mano Raju, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Tenants Union, American Federation of Teachers 2121, Service Employees International Union 1021, Affordable Housing Alliance, San Francisco Council of Community Housing Organizations

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Apartment Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, Hotel Council of San Francisco, Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Association of Realtors, Council of District Merchants Association, The Committee on Jobs, UA Local 38 Plumbers and Pipefitters Union

If passed, what will Prop I do? Proposition I will double the transfer tax rate on certain sales and leases of 35 years or more of real estate with a price of at least $10 million. The tax increase, however, will not apply if the property is sold to the City or to qualified housing nonprofits.

Talk to me about the $$$. The current estimate has this tax measure raising an annual revenue of $196 million for the general fund. This projection, however, has been deemed highly volatile as the revenue raised from the tax is contingent on sales prices, transaction form, volume, and effects on new construction. Furthermore, City Controller Ben Rosenfield believes this tax increase on expensive real estate transfers will likely lead to a number of tax avoidance behaviors, which in turn makes this tax measure’s annual revenue difficult to predict.

With the revenue raised by this tax measure heading to the general fund, the City may spend this money as it sees fit. That being said, the Board of Supervisors passed a recent resolution expressing their non-binding intent to use this revenue only on affordable housing to assist people who could not pay rent due to COVID-19 and finance a Social Housing Program Fund.

sf.citi recommendation: No
Even though this measure is made out to be a tax on wealthy property owners, it could end up hurting the City rather than helping it. The City Controller’s economic impact report ultimately found that the tax would have a net negative impact on San Francisco’s economy, with a decrease of $50 million in the City’s GDP and the loss of 625 jobs. The report also found that the increased tax could constrain the real estate market by making redevelopment plans less feasible, which would lead to higher housing prices and commercial rents. Even more concerning, the constrained market could drastically affect the construction of affordable housing as the tax would discourage new development and prompt companies to forego buying and selling altogether. Given all of the negative effects associated with this tax, we recommend voting “no” on Proposition I.

Prop J: Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District

Sponsored By: Mayor London Breed

Notable Supporters: Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember David Chiu, Assemblymember Phil Ting, Full Board of Supervisors, United Educators of San Francisco, San Francisco Labor Council, Parents for Public Schools, San Francisco United School District Board of Education, San Francisco Families Union

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Taxpayers Association

If passed, what will Prop J do? Proposition J will replace the 2018 School Parcel Tax with a new school parcel tax, lowering the annual tax rate on taxable real estate from $320 to $288 per parcel. The tax does, however, exempt properties owned by people age 65 or older.

This measure will sunset the 2018 School Parcel tax ($320 per parcel) on July 1, 2021 and replace it with the new rate of $288 per parcel. The City will be able to start spending the revenue raised by the new tax rate immediately but will have to wait on a final court decision* to start spending the revenue raised from the original tax rate. The tax would increase over time to adjust for inflation up to June 30, 2038.

*The School Parcel Tax was placed on the ballot through voter initiative and passed with a simple majority rather than the two-thirds threshold required for dedicated tax measures. This parcel tax joined the two 2018 Prop C’s in being challenged in the courts, where it’s fate is still pending. Until the court case is settled, the City is able to collect but not use the revenue raised by this parcel tax.

Talk to me about the $$$. This parcel tax will generate approximately $48.1 million annually to raise funds for teacher salaries and other San Francisco Unified School District purposes.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
With the passage of this measure, the City will fix the legal issue of the 2018 School Parcel Tax and get the school district this much-needed funding without waiting on the courts. The San Francisco school system faces a critical period moving forward and needs this funding more than ever before. In order to quickly raise more revenue for our teachers and other school district needs, sf.citi supports this measure, especially as educators navigate the many challenges of teaching in the age of COVID-19. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition J.

Note: This measure needs a two-thirds supermajority to pass.

Prop K: Affordable Housing Authorization

Sponsored By: Full Board of Supervisors

Notable Supporters: Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember David Chiu, Assemblymember Phil Ting, San Francisco Democratic Party, Affordable Housing Alliance San Francisco Tenants Union, Coalition on Homelessness, Council of Community Housing Organizations, SEIU Local 1021

Notable Opposition: Libertarian Party of San Francisco

If passed, what will Prop K do? Proposition K will authorize the City to develop, acquire, own, rehabilitate, or construct up to 10,000 units of low-income rental housing. This measure will allow San Francisco to do that by exempting the City from Article 34 of the California Constitution, which mandates that any low-income developments must be approved by the voters in that jurisdiction.

To be clear, this measure only provides the City authorization to develop, acquire, own, rehabilitate, or construct these housing units, but would require another measure to provide the funding.

Talk to me about the $$$. While the passage of the measure itself would have minimal impact, if City policymakers choose to proceed in creating the government structure and staffing outlined in the ordinance, the cost will be significant. Another significant cost this measure could lead to down the road will be predicated on the number of units pursued and required infrastructure to successfully execute the goals of policymakers around this measure.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
While California ultimately fell just short of repealing Article 34 in 2018, this measure provides San Francisco residents the unique opportunity to finally exempt the City from this segregation-era law. If passed, this measure will go a long way in making it easier for the City to address our dire housing shortage. sf.citi believes it will further increase the affordable housing stock and address housing affordability in San Francisco. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition K.

Prop L: Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees' Pay

Sponsored By: Supervisor Matt Haney

Notable Supporters: State Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember David Chiu, Assemblymember Phil Ting, Full Board of Supervisors, District Attorney Chesa Boudin, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Labor Council

Notable Opposition: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Taxpayer Association, San Francisco Republican Party, United Democratic Club

If passed, what will Prop L do? This measure seeks to amend the City’s Business and Tax Regulations Code to impose an additional gross receipts tax (GRT) or administrative office tax on companies in which the compensation of the highest-paid managerial employee—anywhere in the world—is at least 100 times more than the median compensation of employees based in San Francisco. The tax starts at a 100 to 1 ratio between the compensation of a company’s executive and median San Francisco employees, which results in a 0.1 percent increase to the company’s tax rate. The tax rate then goes up in increments of 0.1 percent for every 100 times greater the compensation ratio is, and tops out when the compensation ratio is greater than 600 to 1, resulting in a 0.6 percent tax hike. The tax exempts nonprofit organizations, companies with gross annual revenues under $1.7 million, and executives who make less than $2.7 million annually.

Talk to me about the $$$. Current projections have the tax adding upward of $140 million a year to San Francisco’s general fund. While this money may be spent as the City sees fit, the Board of Supervisor passed a recent resolution to express their non-binding intent to use the revenue raised from this tax to hire healthcare workers, mental health workers, emergency responders, and other essential workers to combat COVID-19.

sf.citi recommendation: No
In short, this measure is a misleading reflection of City Hall’s priorities and encourages entry-level positions, among other jobs, to be located outside of San Francisco. Despite claims that this measure increases equity among businesses, a “managerial clause” effectively excludes organizations and businesses with some of the largest wealth and ratio gaps in our City. The clause states that the measure applies only to people who have managerial responsibility, thereby exempting athletic organizations in which the wealth gap between concession stand workers and professional athletes is notoriously unequal.

Additionally, the Board of Supervisors introduced a non-binding resolution stating the intent to allocate the money generated by Proposition L to the hiring of healthcare and other essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The non-binding resolution does not guarantee the money will be spent this way, especially as all revenue will go to the general fund and further inflate the City’s $14 billion dollar budget.

Proposition L does not guarantee how the revenue will be spent, does not encompass businesses and organizations with the largest wealth inequities, and discourages companies from establishing entry-level positions in San Francisco during a time when many San Franciscans are searching for new employment. For these reasons, sf.citi recommends voting “no” on Proposition L.

Measure RR: Caltrain Sales Tax

Sponsored By: Full Board of Supervisors, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

Notable Supporters: Senator Dianne Feinstein, Mayor London Breed, BART Board Director Janice Li, San Francisco Transit Riders, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

Notable Opposition: Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association

If passed, what will Measure RR do? Measure RR will add 0.125 percent sales tax for the next 30 years in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. This tax will be the first of its kind dedicated source of revenue for Caltrain that will fund its continued operation and capital expenses.

In order for this measure to finally be approved by all of the participating counties, the Caltrain Board introduced a resolution to pursue governance reform and cede some of the day-to-day control San Mateo county had over Caltrain to the other two counties. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties also agreed to begin efforts to reimburse San Mateo county for their unpaid shares of the purchase price.

Talk to me about the $$$. The current projections have the regional sales tax raising $108 million annually for Caltrain that the State cannot take away. The revenue raised by the tax will help the transit system fund modernization programs like expanding the electrification of its system and avert a shutdown.*

*Caltrain depends on fares for 70 percent of its revenue. With a 95 percent decline in ridership due to COVID-19, the transit system will go bankrupt without an injection of cash.

sf.citi recommendation: Yes
Without this funding, Caltrain might halt operations. As a vital transportation service that connects residents, employees, and visitors between the South Bay and San Francisco, and serves as an alternative mode of transportation that is critical to unclogging the heavily congested 101 corridor, we cannot afford to lose Caltrain. At sf.citi we are staunch supporters of measures like this one that expand our current transportation system in the Bay Area and improve the quality of our transportation services. We recommend voting “yes” on Proposition RR.

Note: This measure needs a two-thirds supermajority in all three counties to pass.