There are 14 state propositions on this November’s ballot. That’s more proposals than spiders have legs, King Henry VIII had wives, or a cat has proverbial lives. These include nine citizen-initiated measures and five that were processed by the California State Legislature.
Among these are Proposition 40, the so-called “Billionaire Tax,” which places a one-time duty on individuals residing in California with humongous net worth, the proceeds of which would be directed to healthcare, public education, and food assistance; Proposition 3, to make permanent the state’s existing income tax surcharge on top-bracket earners; and Proposition 43, which would raise voter approval required for citizen-proposed local special taxes from a simple majority to a two-thirds supermajority.
The View recommends readers look to CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit newsroom, for information and insights into what’s on the state ballot. Below is our take on local measures.
Proposition A, Charter Update, removes references to municipal departments, offices, and programs that’ve been deactivated, closed, or consolidated over the years. It’d also repeal mandates that bind City workers to obsolete filing equipment or paper record systems, clearing the path for standardized digital management. Yes!
Proposition B, Public Bank, is an attempt to refocus municipal finance and investment strategies towards community projects and small business initiatives. Presently, billions of dollars in tax revenues and operating cash are mostly parked in large banks, which can deploy deposits to finance such activities as fossil fuel extraction and luxury real estate. A public bank would enable the city to hold its own sums and issue loans to local projects or affordable housing developers. While the concept is popular globally no American local governments maintain a public bank, though there’s a state-owned entity, the Bank of North Dakota. The Democratic County Central Committee voted overwhelmingly to endorse Proposition B. The League of Women Voters SF sees it as a risky, multi-million-dollar bureaucratic experiment. The View would tend to agree.
Proposition C, Housing Trust Fund (HTF), a charter amendment to more than double HTF subsidies, an annual budget set-aside established by voters in 2012. Beginning in 2028, the General Fund’s annual HTF contribution would have to be the greater of two amounts: growth in property tax revenue, or growth in discretionary revenue. Compounding calculations would repeat until the annual contribution gets to at least $125 million. The approach contrasts with Proposition I, which’d immediately redirect $120 million in real estate transfer taxes from the General Fund. Upwards of 250 additional affordable units could be constructed annually if Proposition C passes. The View doesn’t love General Fund set asides, which limit elected officials’ ability to shift expenditures where they’re needed most. The extra roughly $65 million a year would pay for Public Work’s annual street sweeping and trash removal budget or the San Francisco Public Library’s yearly expenditures. It’s hard to be against creating more affordable housing, but further embedding this obligation into the charter seems like a bad idea. The mayor and/or Board of Supervisors can decide to invest additional taxpayer funds into accommodations without this initiative. No.
Proposition D, Ballot Rules, would raise the signature threshold for initiatives from two to eight percent of registered voters and require a full vote by the Board of Supervisors to place a measure on the ballot. It’s tempting to favor a proposition that’d reduce the number of future propositions voters would need to study, but, given the wealthy’s already massive influence, it seems like the wrong time to erect higher barriers for grassroots and community-led initiatives. No.
Proposition E, City Administration, would centralize procurement under the City Administrator, and extend the Administrator’s term from five to ten years. Municipal procurement is an expensive, slow, and likely corrupt mess. This isn’t a perfect solution – it critically depends on an excellent, ethical, on-the-ball City Administrator – but it’s better than the status quo. Yes.
Proposition F, Executive Management, would give the mayor direct hire/fire power over most department heads, authority to reorganize departments, and let the Mayor or Board remove their own commissioners. The last change is unfortunate, in that it degrades the ability of citizen-commissioners to be fully independent, and counter undue executive branch actions. On the other hand, maybe that’s a good thing. Yes.
Proposition G, Great Highway, would reopen the Upper Great Highway to cars from 4 a.m. Mondays to 6 p.m. Fridays, keeping Sunset Dunes a diminished weekend park. The measure is the latest in a fierce political battle waged by nearby residents, who rightfully point to worsening traffic as a result of the 2024 closing: Chain of Lakes Drive carries about 2,000 more vehicles per day than pre-closure, the Lower Great Highway about 700 more daily, roughly one extra car per minute at peak hour. The View feels their home rule pain. However, Sunset Dunes has proven to be quite popular, drawing more than 1.7 million visits in its first year, half of which occurred on weekdays. Plus, according to the City Controller reopening the road could cost up to $20 million over five years to dismantle the park and restore traffic elements. Nope.
Proposition H, Transit Tax, imposes a parcel tax, in effect for 15 years, to fund San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency operations, with base rates of about $129/year for single-family homes, $249 for multifamily apartments, and $799 for commercial properties, scaled by property size. This would be on top of the roughly $850 a single-family homeowner already pays in parcel taxes to support public teacher salaries and school facilities, community college, and Bay restoration. And that’s in addition to state property taxes, which can easily top off at another $9,000 or more a year. Proposition H is related to the Regional Transit Measure, which’d raise revenue through a sales tax, a duty that tends to impose more burdens on lower-income people than property taxes. A decent public transportation system is essential for a city. How to raise sufficient funds is a delicate question, alongside the need for fiscal discipline and affordability. Perhaps split the difference, and vote in favor of either H or the Regional measure…?
Proposition I, Property Tax, dedicates transfer tax revenue, garnered from real estate transactions greater than $10 million to affordable housing, about $120 million a year that presently goes to the General Fund. Similar budgeting issues as Proposition C, different tax. No.
Proposition J, Foreclosure Tax, would make large foreclosure and “deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure” property transfers pay the transfer tax for which they’re currently largely exempt. Maintains a partial exemption for residential/mixed-use buildings with fewer than five units. Tax would be based on fair market value, not the unpaid debt. This is reasonable policy. Yes.
Regional Transit Measure, a 14-year regional sales tax, with a one percent assessment in San Francisco. If passed it’d raise roughly $1 billion a year to support BART, Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and AC Transit. San Francisco’s current combined sales tax rate is 8.625 percent, which is in the upper middle compared to other jurisdictions, such as Chicago, about 10.25 percent; Philadelphia, eight percent, and Portland, which doesn’t impose a sales tax. See Proposition H above.
Danny Pham 