The November 2024 BAS Voter Guide
A Big Change to This Year’s Voter Guide
We’ve been doing voter guides for a really long time. I’m pretty sure we put our first one out in like 2010 or something. And I know that thousands of you rely on our voter guides to help you make decision. But this year is going to be a different:
BAS will no longer be endorsing candidates.
The reason for this is that we’ve brought on Independent Arts & Media as a fiscal sponsor, which is AMAZING! This means that anyone who wants to help support our work reporting on local news, arts, and culture in the Bay Area, can now donate tax-deductible!
Unfortunately, since we now take tax-free deductible, that means we can no longer publish voter guides where we endorse candidates.
It’s a bummer, but we need to prioritize the promotion of people and institutions in the Bay that really matter to us and our readers. And if that means we have to behave like a 501(c)(3) to do it, that’s what we will do.
But we can still endorse ballot measures, and that’s exactly what we’re doing below.
This guide was done in conjunction with the League of Pissed Off Voters.
– If you’d like to help pass out the printed voter guides, email the League at TheLeagueSF@gmail.com.
– Want to get involved in the endorsement process? Learn more right here.
Funds raised through IAM as our fiscal sponsor have not been and will not be used to create or promote this Voter Guide.
THE QUICK GUIDE
November 5, 2024
(LONGER EXPLANATIONS COME AFTER)
State Ballot Measures
Prop 2: $10B Education Facilities Bond: Yes
Prop 3: Marriage Equality: Yes
Prop 4: $10B Water Infrastructure and Parks Bond: Yes
Prop 5: Lower Voting Threshold to 55% for Housing and Infrastructure Bonds: Yes
Prop 6: Abolish Slavery in CA Prisons: Hell Yes!
Prop 32: Raise the Minimum Wage: Hell Yes!
Prop 33: Allow Local Governments to Expand Rent Control: Hell Yes!
Prop 34: Grudge Measure against AIDS Healthcare Foundation: No
Prop 35: Extend Funding for Medi-Cal: Yes
Prop 36: Treat Misdemeanors as Felonies: Hell No!
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Prop A: $790M School Infrastructure Bond: Yes
Prop B: $390M Community Health Infrastructure and Parks Bond: Yes
Prop C: Create Inspector General to Combat Corruption: Hell Yes!
Prop D: Mayoral Power Grab to Gut City Oversight Commissions: Hell No!
Prop E: Democratically Streamline City Oversight Commissions: Yes
Prop F: Let Cops Collect Double Pay Before They Retire: No
Prop G: Fund Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families: Yes
Prop H: Earlier Retirement Payday for Firefighters: No
Prop I: Retirement Buy-In for Per Diem Nurses and 911 Operators: Sure
Prop J: Protect Funding for Children, Youth and SFUSD: Yes
Prop K: Parkway at Upper Great Highway: Yes
Prop L: Rideshare Tax to Fund Muni: Yes
Prop M: Business Tax Reform: Strategic “No Endorsement”
Prop N: Empty Gesture for First Responders: No
Prop O: Guarantee Reproductive Freedom in SF: Yes
Longer Explanations
State Ballot Measures
Prop 2: $10B Education Facilities Bond: Yes
Yup, it’s another school bond! Proposition 2 would issue $10 billion in state bonds to supplement local money for a range of infrastructure projects: rebuilding schools over 75 years old, lead remediation, seismic upgrades, broadband internet, and more. $8.5 billion is dedicated to K-12 facilities, with $1.5 billion for community colleges.
A lot of CA school buildings are hella old, and on top of catching up on repairs and maintenance they need money to improve climate resilience and make technology upgrades. As multiple studies (and anyone who has tried to learn geometry in a musty classroom) can tell you, there’s a connection between the quality of school buildings and student performance. So the money provided by Prop 2 could have a big impact on students across the state, and most major school districts have endorsed it.
Buuuut there’s a catch – to be eligible to receive state funding from the bond revenue, Proposition 2 sets a funding formula to determine the amount of money each district is required to contribute . This “matching funds” requirement would require local money to cover 40% to 50% of school infrastructure project costs, with only a few districts maaaybe qualifying for a hardship exemption. Opponents argue Prop 2 will perpetuate inequities across the state, since lower-income and rural school districts might have a tougher time coming up with their share of the money for much-needed projects. On the other hand, maybe it’s not so black-and-white: SFUSD might count as a “wealthy” district compared to other places in the state but lord knows our facilities could use some love.
While we wish Prop 2 had a more equitable funding formula, we gotta say yes to this one because every student in CA deserves to learn in clean, safe, and modern facilities. Yes on Prop 2!
Prop 3: Marriage Equality: Yes
The California Constitution needs to get with the times. Prop 3 amends the California Constitution to include the fundamental right to marry as part of the rights to enjoy life, liberty, safety, happiness, privacy, and the right to equal protection and due process under the law.
This change repeals the language put in place by 2008’s Proposition 8 that defined marriage as only between a man and woman (Uhhhm, is anyone else shocked that Prop 8 is still on the books? Oops!). Kevin de Leon put this one on the ballot, and it’s supported by the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, Equality CA, Governor Newsom, the CA Democratic Party, etc. The only opponents are some very determined conservative groups, including one called “Concerned Women for America” lol.
Let’s clear this up STAT – especially if marriage equality gets overturned at the federal level, we need to codify it in the state constitution. Vote yes on Prop 3!
Prop 4: $10B Water Infrastructure and Parks Bond: Yes
Wildfires, flooding, extreme heat . . . climate change is here and it’s expensive!
Proposition 4 would authorize the state to issue $10 billion in bonds to fund various environmental, energy, and water projects. Here’s how the money would break down for the following categories of projects:
- $3.8B for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience programs.
- $1.5B for wildfire and forest resilience programs
- $1.2B for coastal resilience programs
- $450M for extreme heat mitigation programs
- $1.2B for biodiversity protection and nature-based climate solution programs
- $300M for climate-smart, sustainable, and resilient farms, ranches, and working lands programs
- $700M for park creation and outdoor access programs
- $850M for clean air programs
Prop 4 requires that 40% of the bond revenue be used to fund activities that benefit communities with lower incomes or that are disproportionately vulnerable to environmental changes or disasters. More than 100 environmental groups pushed the legislature to get this bond on the ballot, especially since some programs that address these needs were cut from this year’s state budget.
It’s super-frustrating that there’s nothing on the state ballot to actually address the main causes of climate change in California (mostly heavy industry, vehicles, and buildings). But Prop 4 is a smart way for us to get much-needed resources for climate resilience and adaptation, without being at the mercy of the state’s highly-politicized budget. Vote yes on Prop 4!
Prop 5: Lower Voting Threshold to 55% for Housing and Infrastructure Bonds: Yes
Prop 5 would make it easier for voters to approve general obligation bonds to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects, by lowering the vote threshold for approval from two-thirds to 55%.
This measure was put on the ballot by affordable housing advocates in order to make it easier to pass the regional housing bond BAHFA (which was unfortunately pulled from the ballot at the last minute, despite being supported by every local government across the Bay Area). Even though Prop 5 won’t have the intended impact of supporting a historic affordable housing investment, it’s still important, because it makes it easier to pass important infrastructure bonds like this election’s Prop B and State Prop 4. It also paves the way for an easier path to victory for future campaigns to fund affordable housing.
This makes a real difference. For example: If Prop 5 were already the law of the land, then June 2022’s Prop A would have passed, which would have unlocked a once-in-a-decade opportunity to fund Muni’s capital needs. Instead, Prop A failed with 65% “yes” votes because it didn’t make it to 66%! Gah! The failure of that critical transit bond, fueled by the furor around the Chesa Boudin recall, drove Muni right up to the edge of the fiscal cliff it’s now facing.
Prop 5 is an important step to reclaiming our democracy from rich people who don’t want to pay taxes to fix our crumbling city and state. Vote yes on Prop 5!
Prop 6: Abolish Slavery in CA Prisons: Hell Yes!
Prop 6 would amend the California Constitution to remove involuntary servitude (AKA slavery) as a punishment for crime. (Again, is no one in charge of keeping that document up-to-date? This bullshit has been in there since 1849!!!)
Right now, language in the state constitution prohibits involuntary servitude except to punish crime. Prop 6 replaces that with language prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude absolutely. It would also prohibit the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from disciplining any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment, but authorize the department to award credits to incarcerated persons who voluntarily participate in work assignments. Of course, many Californians would also like to see minimum wage requirements for incarcerated workers. But the Prop’s sponsors worried that voters wouldn’t want to fund the $1.5 billion that would cost, so they decided to keep this one simple as a first step.
This change is one of the reparations priorities for the CA Legislative Black Caucus, led by Lori Wilson (whose district in Suisun County has a state prison). People of color are over-represented in our state’s carceral system, and while Black residents make up just 6% of the state’s overall population, Black people make up 28% of the prison population.
This proposition isn’t just a language change to our constitution, it means an end to punishment for people who resist involuntary servitude, and an important step toward racial justice. Vote HELL YES on Prop 6!
Prop 32: Raise the Minimum Wage: Hell Yes!
Back in 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB3, which raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The minimum wage has never really kept up with the cost of living (at least not in our lifetimes), and too many Californians are working full-time and still struggling to make ends meet.
Cue Prop 32, which would extend the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour! The increases follow the same trajectory as last time, with small businesses getting to take it a little slower. After that, minimum wage would adjust annually in line with inflation (measured as CPI) just as it did under SB3. While some argue that Prop 32 would force businesses to raise prices or lay off workers to cover costs, it doesn’t really work that way. In reality, better-paid workers stay in their jobs longer, so businesses save money on hiring and training new people. Better yet, there’s some evidence that reducing wage inequality would save the state money by allowing low-wage workers to reduce their need for public safety net benefits.
And come on: 18 bucks an hour is $36,000 a year—before taxes! Vote HELL YES on Prop 32!
Prop 33: Allow Local Governments to Expand Rent Control: Hell Yes!
This prop would repeal the awful Costa-Hawkins Rental Act of 1995, a landlord-friendly state law that restricts the type of units eligible for rent control. Costa-Hawkins is why single-family homes and buildings built after 1979 don’t have rent control in San Francisco. Prop 33 won’t change any local laws, or enact rent control everywhere (we wish!) It just lets cities make their own rules. We’re stoked that if this passes we could expand rent control in SF. Don’t fall for the well-funded misinformation on this one – let’s make sure SF voters push Prop 33 over the finish line.
Is rent control pro-housing or anti-housing?
Rent control expansion is pro-housing, actually, because it keeps people in their homes. The biggest problem with rent control is that there isn’t enough of it! We reject the real estate lobbyist framing that says that any legislation that gets in the way of higher real estate profits is “anti-housing”. It’s not “pro-housing” to increase a family’s rent by 10% and force them out onto the street. Vote Hell Yes on Prop 33!
But won’t rent control hurt tenants?
There is a ridiculous real estate industry narrative that rent control is a bad thing for tenants. Corporate landlord profiteers and their lobbyists are warning us that if rent control is expanded even a little bit, everyone’s rents will go up and new construction just won’t “pencil out.” This is, frankly, delulu. Even more wild, they accuse rent control expansion of being a Republican plot to restrict construction of affordable housing in small beach towns like Huntington Beach.
The idea that a wealthy enclave would pass super-restrictive rent control is strictly hypothetical– there is no actual history of that happening. Republican voters hate rent control and continually vote against it, so it beggars belief that Republican leaders would impose pretextual rent control– it’s straight up antithetical to the way their constituents think about markets. The real estate industry argues that enticing developers to build a couple hundred apartments in snobby towns is more important than providing stability and affordability to literally millions of low and middle income renters in the major metro areas that support and want to expand rent control. Don’t believe the hype: Prop 33 is good for tenants.
What’s our plan for the housing crisis?
It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the private market has no plan for financing housing without the promise that rents will go up. Housing is seen as a sound investment for Wall Street instead of a human right for everybody. We have to shift our thinking about the housing crisis from one of regulation to one of financing, and specifically a form of financing that protects tenant stability and promises rents will actually come down. This will require innovative financing like public revenue bonds, which SF is currently pioneering. If there’s revenue for housing production, the builders will build it.
Prop 34: Attack on AIDS Healthcare Foundation: No
In a stunning example of “ugh, why do we have to vote on this shit?” Prop 34 is a targeted attack on the political activities of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Prop 34 would require them to spend 98% of revenue on patient care (AHF is not named in the prop, but the only organization that fits the text’s description is AHF). Reading between the lines, this is a blatant attempt by the CA Apartment Association to raise even more money to sink this ballot’s Prop 33 Rent Control Expansion, which the AHF is backing–and funding.
Under its President Michael Weinstein, AHF has contributed millions of dollars to local and state ballot measures over the years. There has been some controversy around their political positions and their confusing opposition to PrEP. We certainly haven’t always agreed with them, and there’s obviously some merit to the argument that healthcare dollars should be spent on healthcare, not politics.
But we’re not on board with confusing and expensive ballot measures targeting exactly one person, especially when it’s Big Landlords bullying a rent control champion. Vote No on Prop 34!
Prop 35: Extend Funding for Medi-Cal: Yes
We urge YES on Prop 35 because money meant for Medi-Cal should go to Medi-Cal. We’re not big fans of the healthcare industry, the major backers of this prop, but we think even corporate medicine’s self-interest (make more money by caring for poor people) overlaps enough with California’s interest (get more health care for poor people.)
Long version: More than a third of Californians get Medi-Cal, and the state has been steadily expanding access to cover all residents, regardless of immigration status. And yet many folks with Medi-Cal still don’t have reliable healthcare, since doctors and hospitals often won’t take them because their care is reimbursed at a lower rate. When Medi-Cal patients do find doctors who’ll see them, they wind up waiting forever for appointments or to see specialists.
Medi-Cal’s money comes from a special tax called MCO that HMOs and health insurance companies pay, which is matched dollar for dollar by the federal government. The higher the tax, the more matching dollars California gets—but the tax has to be approved by the feds. And the feds have already warned California that it’s exploiting the system: For years we’ve been using the tax and federal matching money to offset state general fund spending on Medi-Cal, and the governor and legislators have dipped into it to fill state budget gaps.
Some health care advocates are opposing Prop 35 because it locks in Medi-Cal funding the way it’s set up now, which could hinder future efforts to restructure the MCO tax and get more money into the pot (that’s probably why the big hospitals and health insurance companies like it so much). Also, if Prop 35 passes we’ll lose out until 2026 on two good things in the current state budget: about $2 billion through to increase payments to some providers who see Medi-Cal patients, and giving kids 0-5 continuous coverage so they’re not automatically disenrolled if their parents don’t re-apply each year.
However, Prop 35 would use Medi-Cal tax funds instead to bump Medi-Cal payments now for behavioral health, expanded primary care, community hospital outpatient care, pediatric and geriatric doctors, some public hospitals, and rural health care—all desperately needed to serve the state’s poorest patients. The measure requires that 99% of the revenues must go to actual patient care, capping administrative expenses at 1%. And, crucially, all Medi-Cal tax and federal matching funds going forward will be locked up for Medi-Cal; it will be safe from legislators trying to divert it to their pet programs every budget cycle.
The governor and many lawmakers hate voter initiatives that tie spending to specific areas because they want to have “flexibility” when it comes to balancing the budget—i.e. To make funding deals and decisions with lobbyists and among themselves. Yes, a few groups, like the advocates for child continuous coverage, are upset that they got left out of the deal for two years. But almost all the state’s healthcare groups, including doctors’ organizations, hospitals, Planned Parenthood, and community clinics, want to ensure that this money secures Medi-Cal for good. Vote yes on Prop 35!
Prop 36: Treat Misdemeanors as Felonies: Hell No!
If you want to know why League voters are so pissed off, just take a look at this ugly proposition, which blends biases against the poor and drug users with contempt for voters. Ten years ago, California voters approved Prop 47, in an attempt to reduce the state’s horrendous prison overcrowding by making some retail theft and drug crimes into misdemeanors. Over the years, and especially after the pandemic, cops, DAs, and right-wing opportunists have frothed and fulminated, blaming Prop 47 for the state’s increase in property crimes, shoplifting, “rampant drug use,” and homelessness. (Yeah, you might think that homelessness happens because people can’t afford housing—but these knuckleheads argue that it’s caused by drug use, and homelessness will be fixed if people are forced into treatment. Or prison.)
This is the haters’ attempt to reverse Prop 47– which, by the way, has hardly ended the carceral nightmare that is the California jail and prison system. Prop 36 would reclassify some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies, and create an entire new category of crime, “treatment-mandated felonies.” People who didn’t contest the charges could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison, but if they didn’t finish it, they’d be imprisoned.
This entire cruel, stupid exercise ignores the fact that, as much as Mayor Breed likes to pontificate about “tough love,” forcing people into treatment doesn’t work, as multiple studies have shown. And it also ignores the reality that the state is “hemmorhaging” drug treatment facilities, and doesn’t have nearly enough treatment beds, even for people who want them. And that homelessness won’t be fixed by incarceration. (And that, by the way, plenty of wealthy, housed people use drugs.) And that voters already declared it was nuts to treat shoplifting as a felony. And that the “new Jim Crow” of mass incarceration fueled by the war on drugs has already devastated our state’s Black communities. And that Prop 36 will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on police and court and prisons without doing anything significant to reduce crime, much less poverty, while actual schools and housing and job programs go without funds. And…..well, you get the idea.
The people have spoken, and we were right the first time: Hell No on Prop 36!
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Prop A: $790M School Infrastructure Bond: Yes
Prop A is a $790 million bond that replaces other bonds that are expiring (so it doesn’t raise taxes). Every few years, SF voters pass a bond to fund infrastructure improvements in SFUSD schools. Despite SFUSD’s apparent inability to manage money in a responsible way, these bonds actually have a pretty good track record. They’re vital, because our aging school buildings desperately need work, and schools are so broke that only the “credit card” of the bond program can cover it. Money from Prop A will go to all kinds of projects across the district (outdoor classrooms, libraries, athletic fields, electric/water/ventilation system updates, earthquake safety, technology, etc) with a big chunk going to improve nutrition facilities so school food can suck less.
The biggest bummer about Prop A is that $790 million’s not nearly enough money. SFUSD’s recent facilities master plan found that to get every building up to snuff would cost $6 billion! With a B! Sigh. Well, let’s pass this, hope that they do as much as possible with it, and steel ourselves to authorize another splashout in 2028. Vote Yes on Prop A.
Prop B: $390M Community Health Infrastructure and Parks Bond: Yes
Prop B is a $390 million bond that will fund renovations to public health facilities, improvements for pedestrian safety, and renovations of public spaces in downtown. This bond is one of many that come before SF voters every cycle (see Prop A, and also the general obligation bonds in 2020, 2016, 2008). The city’s strategy is generally to propose a new bond for the ballot when an old bond expires, so this won’t raise your taxes.
What the bond does do is authorize nearly $200 million in spending to perform much-needed repairs, expansions, and earthquake-proofing of critical healthcare facilities in San Francisco, including Chinatown Public Health Center, City Clinic in SOMA, the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, and Laguna Honda Hospital. These vital healthcare facilities, along with a network of community primary-care clinics, provide outpatient, inpatient, emergency, and ongoing services to San Francisco residents of all ages, in many languages. This bond also dedicates $50 million to build or improve existing homeless shelters in SF, with a focus on shelters for families and emergencies, and another $63.9 million for street safety improvements.
Finally, the bond includes $41 million to “beautify” downtown and put up a statue to Harvey Milk. That part is sort of silly, but overall we’re for a Yes on B to keep our people healthy and our city running well.
Prop C: Create Inspector General to Combat Corruption: Hell Yes!
Prop C will amend the City charter to create a dedicated office of the Inspector General, who would be authorized to investigate fraud or waste in City departments and contractors. It’s about time! San Francisco is one of the only major US cities without an Inspector General. With multiple City Attorneys asleep at the wheel, we’ve had to rely on the Feds to track down the ‘City Family’ criminals who have been selling out San Francisco in smoky backrooms. And the Feds have only been able to catch the little fish!
The Ethics Commission can’t audit the finances of entire departments or of contractors– and in any case, when the SF Ethics Commission slapped Mayor Breed with fines for illegally accepting gifts from convicted felons, its budget was threatened. Neither the DA’s office nor the City Attorney are capable of taking on systemic corruption, either. Prop C would place the new Inspector General under the protection of the City Services Auditor, which has a budget protected by the City charter. With subpoena power and budgetary protections, this position will have the tools necessary to root out the corruption that has been cheating us out of a working city government for decades. Vote Hell Yes on Prop C!
Prop D: Mayoral Power Grab to Gut City Oversight Commissions: Hell No!
Prop E: Democratically Streamline City Oversight Commissions: Yes
There are two props about commissions on the November ballot: D and E. Whichever gets the most votes becomes law and pulls the plug on the other. We’ll give you a tour through both!
At their best, the City’s 115 commissions are a vital part of providing the checks and balances that prevent deparmental bad behavior and corruption. At their worst, they are examples of do-nothing bureaucracy. Right now the City has hundreds of commissions, ranging from crucial oversight of the police to ‘advisory’ committees, which have no power and cost the City no money.
Prop D is San Francisco’s very own Project 2025. It was put on the ballot by Mark Farrell for three reasons: as a slush fund to allegedly launder money from his sleazy donors; to spin a narrative that demonizes commissions as government ‘bloat’, thereby justifying axing them to block healthy public oversight; and to increase the scrutiny-free power of the Mayor’s office – an office Farrell hopes to occupy soon.
Prop D guts public oversight by dissolving the commissions’ decision-making ability and transferring it to the mayor. The mayor would gain even more power than granted already by our exceptionally “strong mayor” system. Prop D is billed as a way to streamline inefficient bureaucracy, but its real purpose is to reduce transparency and slide decision-making out of view of independent oversight.
Under Prop D, a task force would have nine months to arbitrarily reduce SF commissions to fewer than 65 or BOOM! all the existing commissions dissolve, except for those required by law. There goes the last check on mayoral power.
Prop E, on the other hand, is a reasonable approach to getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and no-show commission appointments that reward politicians’ friends. It acknowledges that city commissions have proliferated, but seeks to trim them down judiciously rather than carpet-bomb the lot.
The plan would launch a two-year process to streamline commissions rationally through a task force (a five-person committee, appointed in a balanced way: one expert in open government, appointed by the mayor; one labor rep appointed by the BoS; and the City Attorney, City Administrator and City Controller or their departmental designees).
Prop E will increase transparency, making the functions of commissions and the budgets of the city departments they oversee much clearer. It would require a rationale for doing away with any given commission, ensure that each axed commission’s practical duties would be reassigned, and codify changes through a Charter Amendment written by a real-life City Attorney. Vote No on D and Yes on E!
Prop F: Let Cops Collect Double Pay Before They Retire: No
It’s hardly a secret that many of the races this year are competitions to see who can most luridly whip up voters’ anxieties about “public safety” and appear most rabidly pro-cop. Prop F was sponsored by Sup. Matt Dorsey, a former police comms guy, but most of the supes and mayoral candidates felt obliged to endorse this shameless giveaway to win the support of the powerful, reactionary police officers’ union.
Prop F would establish a “deferred retirement option plan” intended to entice officers to stay in what the SFPD insists on calling an “understaffed” force. Never mind that many cops are already functionally retired on the job— not responding to citizens’ calls, pulling down overtime to stand around in groups watching skateboarders, or sitting in their cars on the BART plazas playing Candy Crush for hours. Annnnd they got a 20% pay bonus last year.
The DROP prop would let cops practically double their salary in their last five years of employment. If old officers stay on, they will be able to collect their retirement pensions, for 3-5 years, while they continue to pocket their regular salaries. On average, officers double-dipping like this would earn close to $450K a year.
We’re not balance-the-budget conservatives, but given that the city’s facing a $800 million deficit, this is ridiculous. Vote No on Prop F.
Prop G: Fund Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families: Yes
Because of convoluted housing formulas, many low-income seniors don’t make enough money to qualify for the city’s low-income housing! The Board of Supes responded to this ridiculous situation in 2019 by setting up a subsidy program, but the Mayor’s budget reduced its annual funding from $4 million a year to a measly $125 thousand. Prop G would establish a baseline of $4 million annually to subsidize units for seniors and families who are too poor to qualify for low-income housing, so that the people who most need homes aren’t shut out. Vote yes on Prop G.
Prop H: Earlier Retirement Payday for Firefighters: No
Okay, speaking of uniformed city employees whose unions’ endorsements have a huge political impact, next up is a sweetheart retirement deal for the firefighters.
In 2011, voters raised the retirement age for firefighters to 58; Prop H would reverse that back down to 55, and would also tweak the employer contribution to pensions so that the city pays more. The cynical political logic is impeccable: who’d want to oppose heroic firefighters? We need to shell out to retain those irreplaceable first responders, right?
The thing is, the SFFD doesn’t have trouble recruiting or retaining firefighters: they’re highly paid, with great benefits, and applicants flock from around the state for these jobs. (And after a 1988 consent decree to overcome a legacy of racial discrimination, the city’s “most intransigent institution” even made some hires from outside its good-old-boy network.)
You’ve probably seen the firefighter union’s billboards claiming that since they get more cancer than the rest of us, they should be able to retire earlier. Listen, everyone should be able to retire earlier. But other at-risk workers (all the underpaid cleaners, night-shift workers, and food delivery serfs) don’t get politicians clamoring to increase their pensions–at a cost of more than $10 million in the first year alone. The ever-mounting cost of this prop—by 2040, the controller estimates it will add over $21 million a year to the budget— does nothing to improve the actual operations of the fire department, and means likely cuts to other city services. We know firefighters are sexy, but vote no on Prop H.
Prop I: Retirement Buy-In for Per Diem Nurses and 911 Operators: Sure
When Ahsha Safaí, ambitious Supervisor-slash-mayoral candidate looking for an endorsement from the nurses’ union, put this measure on the ballot, the rest of the supes quickly jumped on. Because who doesn’t love nurses?
Well, the city loves to talk about health care workers as “essential” first responders but doesn’t actually treat its nurses or its 911 operators very well. It’s infuriating to watch generous measures (Props F and H) shovel cash toward cops and firefighters, who already rake in big salaries and overtime and get the City’s top-tier retirement plan. Like those measures, Prop I is pitched as a way for the city to attract and retain essential employees and address understaffing. But it’s far stingier. [angry snort emoji]
First, some definitions. City-employed per diem nurses are part-time temporary employees. They make more per hour than full-time staff nurses, but don’t get the same benefits. Like travel nurses, per diems fill in gaps caused by austerity scheduling and understaffing, though at least per diems are in the union. Sometimes, nurses who have been working in a per diem role apply for and win permanent positions, at which point they start accruing credit toward their eventual City pension. But their years as a per diem don’t count, despite the fact that they might have been working in exactly the same role. Prop I would give nurses in that situation the option to buy into the (second-tier) City pension plan, and get retirement credit for up to three years of per diem service.
But like we said, it’s kinda miserly. Not all per diem nurses would be eligible for the system; they’d still have to buy retirement credit; and they’d only get credit for 3 years of per diem work. As for 911 operators, they’d be moved up from the very bottom tier of the City retirement plan to the second, meaning they’d pay in more and get better retirement benefits (though not as plush as what cops and firefighters get.)
Overall, this measure is a hack that doesn’t address San Francisco’s very real problem of understaffing, which is largely caused by a terrible City HR process and bottlenecks in hiring. Prop I tries to sweeten the deal for per diems, saying the measure will “give them an incentive to accept full-time positions.” But the real reason most per diems don’t “accept” full-time positions is because it takes too damn long to go through the byzantine hiring process. They give up after waiting six months or more for HR to call them back, and take full-time jobs elsewhere.
The League supports as many people as possible getting into pension systems: God knows these workers are going to need it. So we give a strong yes in support of better benefits for per diem nurses and 911 operators; it’s the least they deserve. But let’s be honest: giving a few people a better retirement deal down the line is not going to solve understaffing: for that, we need real reform of the city’s dysfunctional HR department and hiring process. Vote yes on Prop I.
Prop J: Protect Funding for Children, Youth and SFUSD: Yes
Prop J would create an “Our Children, Our Families Initiative” to coordinate services for children, youth, and families in the city. Any money from the City budget that goes to these services (either through a city department like the Department of Children, Youth, and Families or SFUSD) would have to be linked to a larger citywide plan with clear outcomes and metrics, and the Mayor and Board would have the right to put money on hold during the budget process if those targets aren’t met.
Supervisor Melgar says she put this on the ballot because she was concerned that the Public Education Enrichment Fund (also known as PEEF – about $185 million in the most recent budget), the biggest chunk of money the City gives to SFUSD, was like a “slush fund” and more accountability was needed. It makes sense to have city departments and the school district working together to meet families’ needs, and it makes sense for the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to keep an eye on how $$ is being spent. If this works well, the various stakeholders could avoid redundant programs and identify gaps in services with an eye toward equity, and families across SF will benefit.
We did have some minor reservations about this one. A lot of this setting-goals-and-making-reports work already happens at DCYF and SFUSD, so is Prop J creating unnecessary layers of bureaucracy? There’s also a potential worst-case-scenario if this passes and elected officials don’t like what the district’s doing with city money, and public schools wind up with even less than they do now. But SFUSD’s Superintendent would be part of the team setting the targets, and any attempt to cut funding for kids would likely incur the wrath of SF voters. Plus, maybe having these accountability measures in place could lead to City leaders giving more money to programs for kids and families down the road? Maybe??
Prop J does one crucial thing that tipped us over to a “Yes.” Remember when we passed the Student Success Fund a few years back, to give city money as grants to public schools for academic and social-emotional programs? That money goes from SF’s general fund to DCYF, which then makes grants to schools. In the last round of budget battles, DCYF’s budget was cut because they counted the Student Success Fund as part of DCYF’s baseline funding! When it was supposed to be extra! That led to huge cuts in other programs funded by DCYF [facepalm emoji]. Prop J includes a provision that protects the Student Success Fund, specifying that those funds “cannot replace, supplant, count as, or substitute for other City funding for the School District or children and youth.” So let’s at least fix that bug. Vote yes on Prop J.
Prop K: Parkway at Upper Great Highway: Yes
Prop K would close the Upper Great Highway to cars between Lincoln and Sloat, as the first step in creating a permanent oceanfront park there.
In 2020, during shelter-in-place, the City closed streets to provide open space for recreational purposes. This included the Upper Great Highway. In May 2022, the City launched a pilot program that closed the Upper Great Highway to cars on Friday afternoons, weekends and holidays. The pilot expires at the end of next year.
This prop would make the closure permanent so we can walk and bike beside the ocean anytime – glorious! There’s some concern about increased traffic on residential streets nearby…but since the Great Highway south of Sloat is permanently closing anyway, because it is literally falling into the ocean, traffic is going to have to redirect in any case.
If the Great Highway is closed, it will save the City $350-700K annually just from not having to move as much sand off the road, and $4.3M savings just to not do traffic signal upgrades. The money to build the actual park will be planned and funded through the Rec and Park capital planning process, and will conduct separate community outreach.
We’re invigorated by this enthusiasm for public space and climate resilience, but Leaguers would have liked to see the plan go through the Board of Supes instead of by ballot measure, to get broader community buy-in. But supporters of Prop K decided to go for it now, in hopes of locking the plan in during a high-turnout election. We’re excited to see Prop K pass so the City can lead a robust community input process to create an accessible park for all. Race ya to the beach! Vote Yes on Prop K.
Prop L: Rideshare Tax to Fund Muni: Yes
We love the bus! But love alone doesn’t pay the bills, and Muni needs our help. Prop L, The ComMUNIty Transit Act, will add a small gross receipts tax (1% – 4.5%) on ride hail companies (Uber, Lyft, Waymo) and use the money for Muni’s operational costs (think: driver salaries and new routes, not infrastructure improvements).
The current Muni funding sitch is dire; SFMTA is preparing for service cuts as soon as next year when federal aid begins to run out. Service cuts mean less frequent and reliable service, so people abandon Muni. Fewer riders means less funding, which leads to more service cuts – a doom loop. Meanwhile, Uber & Lyft are posting double-digit growth figures, robotaxis like Waymo are using SF’s streets to beta test their cars (endangering and injuring pedestrians along the way), and SF is woefully behind its Vision Zero targets set in 2014. Shit’s bleak, and like we wrote in 2019, we need mass transit over personal transit. We need Muni and Muni needs us!
Our biggest complaint: Prop L isn’t anywhere close to enough money to fill the gap. It’s expected that Prop L will generate $25M of yearly revenue, but SFMTA’s projected annual deficit is $214M [sob emoji] Other cities have enacted way stronger rideshare taxes than this one: we wish this packed a bigger punch than $0.45 for every $10 ride. But we need every bit of help we can get.
Much like Prop D from 2019 (which we also endorsed, and which also wasn’t enough money, and which passed), Prop L will get money to SFMTA ASAP, to cover current operational costs. The possible transit bond that we’ll vote on in 2026 will mostly be for infrastructure improvements. Those are great, but we need operational funding now!
Unlike in 2019, rideshare companies are coming out swinging against this tax. Uber’s already poured $750,000 into opposing Prop L, and Lyft’s up to $115,000. The campaign against Prop L is led by none other than the ringleader of 2020’s horror show, Prop 22, which screwed over rideshare drivers.
And worst of all, Prop L has an evil twin in Prop M, which contains a “poison pill.” If both props pass, but M gets more votes, Prop L is nixed. So see our recs for strategic voting on Prop M– but no matter what, do your utmost to pull in votes for Prop L. We wish that we didn’t have to fight “David vs. Goliath” battles every time we want to fund, like, basic services. But we’re going to the polls with all our love for Muni, and saying Yes on Prop L!
Prop M: Gross Receipts Tax Reform: Strategic “No Endorsement”
San Francisco’s various business taxes bring in a staggering $1.4 billion per year to the City’s budget, second only to property tax. It’s a critical source of revenue which allows the City to provide any number of vital services that we defend every year, from low-income rental subsidies to expanding drug treatment programs and homeless services.
But it can also be a volatile source of funds. Every once in a while, City policymakers undertake the arduous task of adjusting the business tax to align incentives with the City’s policy priorities and – perhaps most importantly – stabilize the budget against the City’s notorious boom-bust economy. This prop hopes to do just that.
One of the best parts of Prop M is that it would expand the tax exemption to thousands of small businesses, including independent restaurants and retailers who are in a daily struggle to stay afloat. That’s why it’s garnered the support of community-minded small business coalitions like Small Business Forward. At the same time, Prop M would slightly reduce the City’s reliance on the Top-5 taxpayers. While some of us see that as a tax break for the City’s richest businesses, it would also make the City less dependent on – and less politically beholden to – those dominant businesses. Broadening the City’s tax base, while alleviating the tax burden for small businesses, helps to ensure a more stable tax base going forward.
As the trend toward remote work continues, particularly in the tech industry, Prop M would also transition the City away from the volatile payroll tax. That will make it cheaper for San Francisco-based businesses to hire more workers, and reduce labor costs for businesses who rely on in-person employment, including service-oriented businesses, so we love that part.
But we had a hard time with Prop M because it contains a “poison pill” that was inserted in an early draft to ward off a pro-corporate tax proposal that was also headed for the ballot. The poison pill language is still there, and in a stroke of bad luck, it’s phrased in such a way that it would also kill Prop L, the Transit Tax! It’s an unfortunate conflict between two good measures that was caught too late to be avoided.
In sum: Prop L (good) and Prop M (okay) both need at least 50% of the vote to pass. If Prop L gets more votes than Prop M, fabulous, both win! But if Prop M gets more votes than L, then L is toast 🥲. That’s why our members voted for a strategic no endorsement on this one: what we’re ultimately hoping is that *both* measures pass, but Prop L comes out ahead.
What does that mean for your vote specifically? Well, we encourage you to understand what both of these propositions are about, educate your friends, and then…uh…follow your heart!
Prop N: Establish Unfunded First Responder Student Loan Forgiveness Fund: No
Prop N creates a completely unfunded “fund” to forgive student loans for first responders. We love (most) of our first responders, but with no actual money allocated for this, it’s another 100% vibes-only prop that does nothing except make our ballot longer. Why didn’t the Board of Supervisors just pass this as an ordinance? Prop N is really a PR move: an empty gesture with the not-so-secret goal of boosting its author mayoral campaign.
We could write more about why it is not the best use of time or the effort to get it on the ballot, but Aaron Peskin summed it up pretty perfectly during a rules committee meeting on he measure, “We could pass it tomorrow at the BOS; it does not need to be an appendage to the ballot. We could just do our jobs right here.” Vote no.
Prop O: Guaranteed Reproductive Freedom in SF: Yes
Prop O is a symbolic reaffirmation of San Francisco’s dedication to preserving abortion rights. Fake crisis pregnancy centers would be required to post signs saying they’re actually not health care providers. The City would be required to not cooperate with federal prosecutors or other states coming after us for providing medical services that might be illegal in other places. This one is a slam dunk. Vote yes.
Voting Logistics
Register to Vote at the Post Office or online at RegisterToVote.ca.gov. The deadline to register is October 21st, but in SF you can register in person at City Hall up until Election Day. You can also register at any polling place on Election Day: just ask to cast a provisional ballot. Call 415-554-4375 for more info.
WHEN?
October 7th: Early voting starts at City Hall, weekdays 8am-5pm.
October 26th: Weekend early voting starts at City Hall, Saturdays and Sundays 10am-4pm.
November 5th: Election Day! Polls open 7am-8pm. If you’re in line by 8pm you can vote. You can also drop your ballot off at any polling place on Election Day.
WHERE?
Drop off your ballot early at one of the 37 official ballot drop boxes across the City, from October 7th through 8pm on Election Day. On election day you can drop your ballot off at any polling place by 8pm on November 5th..
Mail your ballot if you can’t drop it off. You don’t need a stamp, but make sure you sign the envelope and that it’s postmarked by November 5th.
Where’s your polling place? Check SF Elections’ Voting Lookup Tool, call 311, or just go vote at City Hall.
WHAT ELSE?
Did you forget to register? You can still vote! Go to City Hall or your polling place and tell them you want to “register conditionally and vote provisionally!”
People with felony convictions can vote! You can vote even if you’re on parole. Re-register at Restore Your Vote.
Youth can (almost) vote! If you’re 16 or 17, pre-register to vote and your registration will automatically be activated when you turn 18.
Howdy! My name is Katy Atchison and I'm an Associate Editor for Broke-Ass Stuart.
I want to take the time to say thank you for supporting independent news media by reading BrokeAssstuart.com. Supporting independent news sources like Broke-Ass Stuart is vital to supporting our community because it amplifies the voices of a wide variety of diverse opinions. You also help support small businesses and local artists by sharing stories from Broke-Ass Stuart.
Because you're one of our supporters, I wanted to send over a pro-tip.
Our bi-weekly newsletter is a great way to get round ups of Broke-Ass Stuart stories, learn about new businesses in The Bay Area, find out about fun local events and be first in line for giveaways.
If you’d like to get our newsletter, signup right here, it takes 5 seconds.
You Might Also Like
