This is an archived page.

Proposition A would issue up to $300 million in general obligation bonds for the purchase, construction, development, and rehabilitation of affordable housing, including senior housing, workforce housing, and housing for people who are experiencing street violence, domestic violence and abuse, sexual abuse and assault, human trafficking, or other trauma relating to homelessness.

The League supports measures that provide for the needs of low-, moderate-, and middle-income groups. The League applauds the goals of this bond measure to increase and preserve affordable housing in San Francisco and to provide housing for those most at risk of facing homelessness.

Vote YES on Prop A

The League supported Prop E in November 2020, which removed the City Charter mandate requiring a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers for police department staffing and that also created a process for making decisions for police department staffing based on facts and data.

Now, this election’s Proposition B would reestablish a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers for police department staffing and increase the minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers annually for five years. The hiring of these officers would be contingent on voter approval of various tax mechanisms to fund these increases, which would be set-asides from the General Fund.

Particularly when adequate funding for human services and other essential government activities is threatened, as it is now, the City needs flexibility in how to allocate the funds it does have.

Vote NO on Prop B

The League promotes restoring the economic health of cities and improving the quality of urban life. San Francisco has both a high office vacancy rate and a housing affordability crisis, and developers have long over-invested in commercial and office space and under-invested in the city’s housing needs. Proposition C wants to give an incentive to developers by exempting properties from the City’s real estate transfer tax the first time commercial buildings will be converted to residential use.

However, the City is also experiencing a severe budget deficit. The Controller’s analysis found that Prop C would “significantly decrease” transfer tax revenue and have unpredictable overall revenue impacts. The League supports revenues that meet the needs of the people, a progressive tax structure, and the efficient collection and distribution of revenue. Particularly when adequate funding for human services and other essential government activities is threatened, as it is now, the City needs revenue that’s sufficient and flexible enough to meet changing needs. Prop C’s transfer tax exemption would not contribute to a system of public finance that emphasizes equity and fair sharing of the tax burden.

Prop C would also give power to the Board of Supervisors to reduce or repeal the transfer tax altogether. Currently, any transfer tax changes must be approved by voters, as they did in Prop W in November 2016 and Prop I in November 2020, both supported by the League. In 2022, after successfully defending the transfer tax in court, City Attorney David Chiu said, “We have consistently maintained that San Francisco voters have the authority to choose how the city taxes real estate transactions within its borders.”

This measure misses an opportunity to include new requirements or incentives for affordable housing. Instead, Prop C includes changes that would increase the amount of office space that can be developed.

After careful consideration, LWVSF’s board of directors came to the consensus to be neutral on Prop C.

Proposition D would strengthen and protect local ethics laws, increase transparency, and hold City officers and staff accountable. Specifically, the measure would expand important prohibitions on gift giving, bribery, behested payments, and conflicts of interest. It would also require all City officers and employees to undergo an annual ethics training, limit the Board of Supervisors to amend ethics laws only with a supermajority, require additional reporting disclosures of gifts to City departments, and impose penalties on City officers and employees who fail to disclose their personal, professional, or business relationships with any person with involved in a government decision.

The League supports enhancing political equality for all people, ensuring transparency,  protecting democracy from distortion by undisclosed contributions and big money, and combating corruption and undue influence in government — all of which Prop D would advance in meaningful ways.

Vote YES on Prop D

This reductive measure is a waste of time. Proposition E is trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. Like our opposition to Prop H in June 2018, the League believes the City shouldn’t use the ballot box to create policing policy. The League joins with the ACLU of Northern California and other organizations to oppose Prop E.

Prop E would add more roadblocks masquerading as community engagement. While it claims to take out redundancies, the proposed measure is itself redundant, attempting to recreate policies that already exist. It would also dilute other progress that’s been made in updating police policies in line with federal recommendations, progress which the League has supported. The measure would add more bureaucracy than it would eliminate, yet it would also stop key reporting and recordkeeping requirements, without which policing would be less transparent and accountable.

The League also opposes Prop E because it would allow the use of invasive technology, such as facial recognition and biometrics surveillance. These technologies undermine our individual liberties while perpetuating and reinforcing systemic racial bias. This can lead to continued over-policing of communities that are already negatively impacted by institutionalized racism in the justice system.

Vote NO on Prop E

While we must reduce drug overdoses, it’s a public health issue that should be addressed through public health means — not by punitively taking away public assistance from the people who need it most.

The League believes that a person’s eligibility for public assistance should be based on need and established through simplified procedures. Proposition F would change public assistance from being based solely on need to a system that excludes people who have substance use disorder but are not ready for treatment. Treatment should be available when people are ready and should not be compulsory, and someone’s readiness for treatment should not reduce their access to public assistance.

Rather than this harmful and misguided measure, the City should sufficiently fund the Department of Public Health and address its significant staff vacancies. There is simply no point in proposing this measure when there’s not enough staff to operate the services this measure wants recipients to receive.

Vote NO on Prop F

Prop G is a declaration of policy. We do not take any stand on declaration of policy ballot measures.