Proposition endorsements

The League of Women Voters of San Francisco strongly opposes Proposition A because it strips too much power from the people and hands it to City Hall, and that’s not good government.

Although proponents frame the proposition as “small fixes” to outdated Charter language, the facts don’t back that up. Even one of its sponsors, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman, acknowledged as much, calling it “actually so consequential.”

It does make a few fixes, such as deleting a handful of defunct commissions from the Charter and updating descriptions of department operations. But Proposition A goes much further than benign Charter cleanup — and is every bit as consequential as Supervisor Mandelman admitted. 

Proposition A isn’t really reform. It’s a large set of changes that weaken public control. We strongly oppose this proposition because it conflicts with our positions that call for strong oversight through effective commissions, the public’s right to participate in government, and a Charter that provides for accountability and transparency.

It resurrects many of the same attacks on independent oversight commissions that we opposed in November 2024’s cynical, manipulative, and poorly conceived Proposition D, which voters decisively rejected. This time, rather than eliminate commissions outright and face the same voter backlash, Proposition A uses a more subtle approach, pulling many commissions out of the protection of the Charter, which can only be changed by voters. 

Commissions don’t land in the Charter by accident. Voters deliberately put them there to protect them from political meddling. Once commissions move into regular City government code, Supervisors can usually change or eliminate them without a vote by the people.

The overreach doesn't stop there. The proposition strips many commissions of real authority, and turns required commissioner qualifications into optional suggestions the Mayor, Supervisors, and other appointing bodies can ignore. It lets most commissions stop publishing annual reports, one of the few ways people can see what our government is doing for our community so we can hold it accountable. 

Commissions are one of the best ways for San Franciscans to have a say in their own government’s priorities. People shouldn’t have to give up that power to get a government that works.

Propositions A, D, E, and F shift power away from the people, and we recommend you vote no on all four.

Vote NO on Prop A!

California law already allows cities to create public banks, but the San Francisco Charter needs updating so we can unlock a lower-cost way to fund community needs. The League of Women Voters of San Francisco supports Proposition B, which lets our local government launch a public bank once it’s financially sustainable and approved by regulators. 

A public bank keeps municipal dollars working for the public good rather than funneling fees and interest to big for-profit banks. Instead of offering consumer checking and savings accounts, a public bank is a targeted financial tool for priorities like affordable housing, small businesses, and environmental programs. Other local and state Leagues have supported public banks based on our privatization position as well as our belief that a responsible government helps solve the economic and social challenges that affect people's well-being. Many of our other local, state, and national positions also align with the public bank’s goals.

The proposition comes with a comprehensive plan for how the public bank would be run, with strong governance and guardrails to limit risk, and no spending requirement. It simply gives San Francisco the authority to take steps to build a transparent, community-focused financial alternative.

Vote YES on Prop B

Proposition C is exactly the kind of government funding for affordable housing the League of Women Voters supports because we believe a decent place to live should be possible for San Franciscans at all income levels.

Voters created the Housing Trust Fund in 2012 to help pay for building and repairing affordable housing, and this proposition grows the government’s commitment to a program that works. The proposition would require the city government to put more money into the Housing Trust Fund, slowly raising that amount from today's $52 million to $125 million each year, without raising taxes. If there’s a major budget crunch, the Board of Supervisors can temporarily lower or pause that contribution.

The proposition allows more San Franciscans to qualify for down-payment assistance for buying a home, and lets our local government use the fund to pay for more things, like social housing, co-ops, and the street, sidewalk, and utility projects that affordable housing needs. The fund sticks around longer too, but still has an end date, which we like to see.

Vote YES on Prop C

Proposition D locks regular people out of elections and gives power to whoever can buy their way onto the ballot. The League of Women Voters of San Francisco strongly opposes this threat to democracy.

Right now, putting a proposition before voters doesn't require deep pockets. Anyone can gather the required signatures and get a proposition on the ballot. Proposition D changes that, quadrupling the signature requirement for regular elections and raising it substantially for special elections.

It also strips the ability of the Mayor or a group of four Supervisors to put a proposition on the ballot, leaving only a six-vote majority of the Board of Supervisors. At first glance, that might sound like a check on power, but paired with such high signature requirements, it cuts the paths onto the ballot down to just two: winning over most of the Supervisors or paying for an expensive signature collection campaign.

These changes won’t affect everyone equally. Well-funded special interests and campaigns that can afford paid signature gatherers will be unaffected, while less well-resourced community coalitions, working-class groups, and neighborhood organizers will be silenced. The result will be ballots that reflect only the priorities of those who can afford to be heard.

The League of Women Voters has long fought for people’s right to participate in government decisions, including broad and equitable access to getting issues on the ballot, especially for underrepresented communities. Signature initiatives are the only way most San Franciscans have to put an issue on the ballot when their elected officials refuse to act.

Fair elections depend on an inclusive process, one where the cost of participation does not determine who gets to be heard. Proposition D puts an expensive paywall on our ballot process, one few San Franciscans can afford.

Propositions A, D, E, and F shift power away from the people, and we recommend you vote no on all four.

Vote NO on Prop D!

Proposition E hands a lot more power to an unelected official, with little accountability to match.

The proposition gives the unelected City Administrator broad new authority over government contracting and technology, including for departments like Muni, the airport, and the Port that currently set their own rules. It also lets the City Administrator introduce contracting laws that take effect unless the Supervisors or Mayor step in, raises the maximum value of a contract the City Administrator can approve without Board of Supervisors sign-off beyond what inflation justifies, and doubles the City Administrator’s term from 5 years to 10 years, extending the current appointee's time in office.

This isn't new territory for the League of Women Voters. Back in 1995, we supported a proposition that, among other changes, replaced the old Chief Administrative Officer with the City Administrator position and shortened the role’s term from 10 years to 5 years to increase accountability. Proposition E moves in the opposite direction, and also conflicts with our positions on public participation in government as well as transparency and accountability when contracting out to the private sector.

The City Administrator is appointed, not elected, and can’t be recalled by voters. A decade in office, with vastly expanded authority over how the government spends billions of dollars, is a lot of power with too few checks against abuse.

Propositions A, D, E, and F shift power away from the people, and we recommend you vote no on all four.

Vote NO on Prop E

Proposition F hands the Mayor sweeping new power over our government and removes many checks and balances. We strongly oppose this proposition because it conflicts with our positions on public participation, effective commissions, and transparent and accountable government.

It lets the Mayor fire nearly every department head for any reason, without commission approval, and cuts commissions out of a lot of the department head hiring process. It also lets appointing authorities fire most commissioners for any reason, instead of only for real misconduct, taking away the independence commissioners need to push back on the officials who appointed them. We opposed a similar attempt to take power away from commissions in November 2024’s cynical, manipulative, and poorly conceived Proposition D, which voters decisively rejected.

Proposition F goes even further, reviving Mayor-appointed deputy mayors, an unelected, unaccountable system voters banned in 1991 after anger over deputy mayors’ excessive salaries and unchecked power. This proposition would bring those deputy mayors back, each managing billions of dollars with no public oversight, in a city still reeling from recent corruption convictions of unelected high-level officials.

Also concerning, the proposition strips the Police Commission’s authority to remove the Chief of Police, leaving that power with the Mayor alone. This undermines the commission’s oversight of the police.

Proposition F just isn’t good government.

Propositions A, D, E, and F shift power away from the people, and we recommend you vote no on all four.

Vote NO on Prop F!

Note: When we're neutral, we explain why, so people have information to make their own decision and vote.

Few local issues have been as heavily litigated and voted on recently as the Great Highway and Sunset Dunes Park. Since the government turned the road into a recreation space at the start of the pandemic, voters rejected allowing cars and other private vehicles on the Great Highway in 2022, and approved permanently closing the road to cars to create Sunset Dunes Park in 2024. The League of Women Voters opposed letting cars on the road in 2022 because of our climate change and transportation positions, and was neutral on the 2024 proposition because it lacked accessibility funding. 

Proposition G would reverse those voter decisions and open the Great Highway to cars and other private vehicles Monday to Friday, closing Sunset Dunes Park to pedestrians and recreation during that time.

With 1.7 million visits in its first year, the park has become an important open space where the government continues to add traffic calming and recreational improvements. Preserving the park aligns directly with League positions on natural resources and the quality of urban life. 

Opening the Great Highway to cars would be fiscally unsound, costing up to $20 million over the first five years. We’re concerned about the west side’s inadequate public transit, and the League supports expanding transit and reducing car travel. However, this proposition has no requirements to increase bus service, encourage driving less, address climate impacts, or pay for the cost of letting cars on the road.

After discussion, our board of directors decided to be neutral on Proposition G.

Neutral on Prop G

Muni is running out of money and faces service cuts that would affect all San Franciscans, even people who don’t take public transit. Without new funding, SFMTA, which runs the city’s buses and light rail, may need to cut up to 20 routes, double wait times, and gut late-night service. This will increase traffic, drag down the city’s economy, and make it harder to get to work, school, and everywhere in between.

Proposition H helps address Muni’s funding crisis through a new parcel tax based on a property's size and type, with larger buildings and commercial properties paying significantly more. This aligns with our positions on progressive tax structures and adequate revenue to maintain government services. For homeowners, the tax is a predictable $129 each year, and many older homeowners, nonprofits, and single-room occupancy properties will pay less or nothing at all.

The League of Women Voters of San Francisco endorsed Proposition H early on because reliable public transit is vital for our community. Although we would have preferred that owners of rent-controlled buildings absorb the full tax rather than being allowed to pass through up to $65 per year to tenants, Muni's overwhelming financial need makes this proposition essential.

Vote YES on Prop H!

San Francisco needs a dedicated, reliable source of money for affordable housing, and Proposition I delivers one without increasing taxes. It redirects half the money our local government already collects when a property worth $10 million or more is sold into a new House SF Fund dedicated to affordable housing.

Most of the money from taxing those big real estate deals will go toward building and repairing affordable housing, along with eviction protection and emergency rent assistance to help people stay in their homes. To encourage developers to build more housing, some newly built apartment buildings won’t have to pay the tax. There’s also plenty of oversight to make sure the money is well spent.

The League of Women Voters has long advocated for more affordable housing, stronger homelessness prevention, and progressive tax structures where the people who have more pay more. Because this proposition only affects property transfers of $10 million or more, the majority of San Franciscans won’t pay a dime. We supported progressive changes to the transfer tax in 2016 and 2020.

We support Proposition I because it takes money our government already collects on big real estate deals, and uses it to help solve the affordable housing crisis, at no extra cost to most San Franciscans.

Vote YES on Prop I

Proposition J ends a tax break that has let big real estate lenders off the hook for years. Right now, lenders foreclosing on commercial buildings, large apartment complexes, and hotels pay little or no tax on the property transfer.

This proposition ends the foreclosure exemption for large properties while keeping it in place for single-family homes, condos, smaller apartment buildings, and a few other property types. The City Controller estimates taxing large property foreclosures at their full value could bring in $100 million to $150 million per year for the first five years — money our city badly needs. Proposition J is the kind of progressive, equitable, and necessary taxation the League of Women Voters supports.

Vote YES on Prop J