Pros & Cons Guide (English, 简体字版, 繁体字版, Español, Tagalog)

Bond measure. Placed on the ballot by the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education. Requires a 55% vote to pass.

The question: Shall San Francisco Unified School District be authorized to issue
$790 million in general obligation bonds to improve, repair, and upgrade school district sites and build new facilities, with independent oversight of the use of the bond funds?

Background: The San Francisco Unified School District educates more than 49,500 students from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The school district builds, repairs, and maintains its facilities, primarily using funds from voter-approved bond measures, as well as local parcel taxes and developer fees. To issue general obligation bonds, the school district must provide voters with a list of the types of projects the funds will be spent on. Under state law, school districts cannot use bond funds for teacher and administrator salaries or operating expenses. The most recent school bond was approved by voters in 2016. Property tax revenues pay the principal and interest on these bonds.

The proposal: Proposition A would authorize the school district to borrow up to $790 million by issuing general obligation bonds. The school district may use the bond funds to improve, repair, and upgrade any of its sites to address health and safety risks. Projects may include those to: improve earthquake safety, increase accessibility for people with disabilities, fix damaged buildings, remove hazardous materials, provide reliable internet, improve nutrition services, repair and replace major systems (such as electrical, plumbing, ventilation, heating, lighting, security, and fire sprinklers), modify building interiors (such as classrooms) and exteriors, replace temporary classrooms with permanent structures, expand existing or add classrooms or school buildings, build or renovate certain areas (such as kitchens, auditoriums, gymnasiums), and perform work to comply with codes or regulations. The school district would be required to create an independent citizens’ oversight committee to review and report on the use of these bond funds. The proposition may require an increase in property tax to pay principal and interest on the bonds.

👍 If you vote YES, you want the school district to issue up to $790 million in general obligation bonds to improve, repair, and upgrade school district sites, and to build new facilities.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want the school district to issue these bonds.

Supporters include: SF Building and Construction Trade Council, SF Parent Action, United Educators, SFUSD Bond Program Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee.

Supporters claim: Funds essential upgrades without increasing taxes. The funding is for capital infrastructure projects. It will upgrade inadequate kitchen facilities to provide students with nutritious meals.

Opponents include: Libertarian Party of SF, SF Apartment Association.

Opponents claim: Few details are given for the list of projects. There is waste in administration salaries that should be eliminated before more money is spent. SF’s school district has higher per child cost than other Bay Area school districts.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-A-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Bond measure. Placed on the ballot by Mayor Breed and Supervisors Mandelman, Ronen, Stefani, Melgar, Dorsey, Engardio, Peskin, and Preston. Requires a 66.66% majority vote to pass, unless California State Proposition 5 passes allowing a 55% majority to pass.

The question: Shall the City issue up to $390 million in general obligation bonds to fund community health and medical facilities, street safety, public spaces, and shelter to reduce homelessness in San Francisco?

Background: The City is responsible for providing and maintaining public facilities and infrastructure, including hospitals and clinics, streets, public spaces, and housing for unhoused people. Since 2005, the City’s long-term plan, approved every two years, has prioritized projects to satisfy legal mandates, preserve City properties, sustain economic development, and improve health, safety, and living standards. City funding for these projects comes from general obligation bonds and other sources.

The proposal: Proposition B would allow the City to borrow up to $390 million (abbreviated as M) by issuing general obligation bonds. The City would use up to: $99.1M to acquire or improve community health centers, including $71.1M to on Chinatown Public Health Center and $28M on the City Clinic; $66M on repairs to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, and Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center; $40M to make SF General Hospital earthquake-ready; $63.9M on street and sidewalk safety; $41M on public spaces in downtown; $25M on Harvey Milk Plaza; $5M on parks and recreation spaces; and $50M on more shelters or temporary housing to reduce unsheltered homelessness, particularly for families. Funds for these projects exceed what can be paid out of the City’s budget, and this bond will fund what’s needed. These projects are consistent with the City’s long-term plan.

👍 If you vote YES, you want the City to issue $390 million in general obligation bonds to fund community health and medical facilities, street safety, public spaces, and shelter to reduce homelessness in San Francisco.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want the City to issue these bonds.

Supporters include: SF General Hospital Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, Council of District Merchants Associations, Castro Merchants, CA Nightlife Association, Polk District Merchants, Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Club, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Club.

Supporters claim: Allows the City to deliver quality healthcare, be earthquake-ready, and comply with legal requirements. Makes San Francisco safer and easier to get around, reduces family homelessness, creates jobs, and provides economic
benefits. Requires accountability and transparency.

Opponents include: The Briones Society, SF Apartment Association.

Opponents claim: Adds unneeded funds for homelessness and other projects. Contributes to budget deficits. Continues ineffective, mismanaged approach and does not reform systems. Allows nonprofits not meeting goals to continue to receive funds. Continues a higher tax rate that could be lower.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-B-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Peskin, Safai, Ronen, Preston, Chan, and Dorsey. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to create the new position of Inspector General in the Controller’s Office to review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse, and give the Controller’s Office additional powers to issue subpoenas and execute search warrants when permitted by state law?

Background: The Controller is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Supervisors to oversee the City’s finances. The Controller is required to investigate complaints about the quality and delivery of government services, waste, misuse of funds, and improper activities by City officers and employees. The Controller can examine the records of City boards, commissions, officers, and departments, but cannot issue subpoenas to require contractors, lobbyists, and others to produce records. State law allows the Controller’s Office to execute search warrants in limited circumstances, but the Charter does not. The City Attorney, District Attorney, Ethics Commission, and others have jurisdiction over public integrity; the Department of Human Resources over employee misconduct; and the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General over complaints about the department’s employees. 

The proposal: Proposition C would create the new position of Inspector General in the Controller’s Office to review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse. The Controller would appoint the Inspector General, with the approval of the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The Inspector General could be terminated by the Controller or removed by the Mayor for cause if approved by two-thirds of Supervisors. The Inspector General would consult with the Ethics Commission, City Attorney, District Attorney, and Department of Human Resources about fraud, waste, and abuse complaints, and could coordinate with them, refer matters, or conduct its own investigations. Twice a year, the Inspector General would publish a public report on its activities and the outcomes of investigations. The Controller would be given the power to issue subpoenas and execute search warrants on contractors, lobbyists, and others. The Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General would be renamed the Office of Sheriff’s Inspector General.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to create the new position of Inspector General in the Controller’s Office to review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse, and give the Controller’s Office the power to issue subpoenas and execute search warrants when permitted by state law.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: Build Affordable Faster CA, Tenants Union, Affordable Housing Alliance, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods.

Supporters claim: Creates a more effective, accountable City government, similar to other major cities. Because it is part of the Controller’s office, no new taxes are needed. Not being an elected position, the Inspector General will be independent of politics.

Opponents include: Larry Marso, Jay Donde.

Opponents claim: Adds more bureaucracy. Power to subpoena and audit already exists elsewhere in the City government. There will be enforcement costs not acknowledged by proponents.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-C-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by voter petition by TogetherSF Action. Requires a simple majority vote to pass. If Proposition D passes with more votes than Proposition E, then Proposition E would fail.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to limit the number of commissions the City can have to 65, give the Mayor sole authority to appoint and remove City department heads, and give the Police Chief sole authority to adopt rules governing police officers’ conduct?

Background: The City has about 130 appointed boards, commissions, and advisory bodies (for simplicity, referred to as commissions), with 44 established in the Charter and only changeable by voters. The rest are created by ordinance and can be changed by the Board of Supervisors. There's no limit on the number of commissions, which vary in their roles from decision-making to advisory. Some oversee City departments, and nominate department heads for Mayoral appointment and generally have sole authority to remove them. The Mayor typically appoints just over half of commissioners, subject to confirmation by the Board of Supervisors, with the Board appointing the rest. Removal of some commissioners is limited to cases of official misconduct. Commissioners volunteer, with a small number receiving stipends and healthcare benefits. Notably, the Police Commission sets rules for police officer conduct.

The proposal: Proposition D would change the composition, appointment processes, and responsibilities of City commissions, and adjust the balance of power between commissions, the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and department heads. It would set a limit of 65 commissions, keeping 20 in the Charter including Ethics, Fire, Planning, and Police, and those required by federal or state law. It would remove 24 Charter commissions, including Arts, Environment, Juvenile Probation, Library, Health, Homelessness, Small Business, and Youth. It would create a Task Force to recommend which other commissions to eliminate or restructure. It would restrict commissions to advisory roles only, except where legally mandated. It would give the Mayor power to appoint at least two-thirds of all commissioners without confirmation by the Board of Supervisors, and would give the Mayor sole power to appoint and remove most City department heads. It would end commissioner stipends and healthcare benefits. It would also reassign authority for police officer conduct rules from the Police Commission solely to the Police Chief.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to limit the number of commissions the City can have to 65, give the Mayor sole authority to appoint and remove City department heads, and give the Police Chief sole authority to adopt rules governing police officers’ conduct.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: TogetherSF Action, Inner Mission Neighborhood Association, Chinese American Democratic Club, YIMBY Action, Stop Crime Action, Chamber of Commerce.

Supporters claim: The number of commissions is inefficient and sometimes redundant, a layer of bureaucracy that hinders the City’s ability to address challenges. The Mayor has no power to approve or reject appointments made by the Board, creating an imbalance of power. The system is unmanageable.

Opponents include: Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, SF League of Conservation Voters, SF Labor Council, Coleman Advocates for Youth, United Educators, Small Business Forward, Tenants Union, Affordable Housing Alliance.

Opponents claim: Ends public oversight of police conduct, including use of deadly force. Reduces public engagement with an arbitrary cap on commissions. Gives the Mayor significant power at the expense of the Supervisors, the elected officials who are closest to voters. No public debate about the details, with millions of dollars spent promoting it by wealthy donors.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-D-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Peskin, Ronen, Preston, and Mandelman. Requires a simple majority vote to pass. If Proposition E passes with more votes than Proposition D, then Proposition D would fail.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to create a Task Force with authority to make recommendations by February 1, 2026, on ways to change, eliminate, or consolidate commissions to improve the administration of government, require a financial report on commissions, and give the Task Force authority to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations, and if necessary, require the City Attorney to draft Charter amendments to submit to voters at a future election?

Background: The City has about 130 boards, commissions, and advisory bodies (for simplicity, referred to as commissions). Some commissions are established in the City Charter, and may be authorized to make certain decisions and policy. Most City Commissions are created by ordinance and instead provide non-binding advice to City departments and officials. The Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, or City departments can introduce ordinances, which must be approved by the majority of the Board and can be vetoed by the Mayor. Some ordinances are brought to the voters, who may require their approval for future changes to ordinances.

The proposal: Proposition E would create a Commission Streamlining Task Force to review the City’s commissions and recommend to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors by February 1, 2026, how the City could change, eliminate, or consolidate commissions to improve the administration of government. The Budget and Legislative Analyst would prepare a report on the cost of each commission. The Task Force would be authorized to introduce ordinances to implement its recommended changes, which would take effect 90 days after introduction unless rejected by a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors. Some changes may require voter approval in a future election. For changes to commissions in the Charter, the City Attorney would be required to prepare a Charter amendment for the Board to consider placing on the ballot for a future election. The Task Force will end 24 months after its first meeting.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to create a Task Force with authority to make recommendations on ways to change, eliminate, or consolidate commissions to improve the administration of government, require a financial report on commissions, and give the Task Force authority to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations, and if necessary, require the City Attorney to draft Charter amendments to submit to voters at a future election.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, SF League of Conservation Voters, SF Labor Council, Coleman Advocates, United Educators, Small Business Forward, Tenants Union, Affordable Housing Alliance, Build Affordable Faster CA.

Supporters claim: The Task Force’s recommendations will be confirmed by voters in a future election. Maintains commission oversight of police department policies. Mandates the Task Force study the cost-benefit analysis of every commission. Does not set an arbitrary limit on the number of commissions.

Opponents include: Larry Marso, Delta Chinatown Initiative, Inner Mission Neighborhood Association, Chinese American Democratic Club.

Opponents claim: No guarantee this will reduce the number of commissions. Does not hold commissions accountable. Adds bureaucracy and lacks oversight. Supervisors can block or change the Task Force’s recommended legislation.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-E-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Dorsey, Peskin, Stefani, Melgar, Mandelman, Safai, Chan, and Engardio. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to define “full-duty sworn officer,” require the Police Chief to make a report and recommend future staffing of those officers to the Police Commission every three years instead of two, require the Commission to report annually on Department staffing, and create a five-year renewable program allowing police officers to work for the Department after retiring, with pension payments deferred while they are working?

Background: The Police Commission oversees the San Francisco Police Department. The Charter requires the Police Chief to submit a report every two years to the Commission, describing the current number of full-duty sworn officers and recommending staffing levels of full-duty sworn officers for the next two years. The Commission must consider this report and recommendation when it approves the Department’s budget. The Charter does not define “full-duty sworn officers.” Under the Charter, police officers are eligible for City retirement benefits, with pension payments based on their compensation, age and length of service. The Charter does not allow City employees, including police officers, to continue working full time for the City after retirement. But, the City may rehire retired City employees to work a limited number of hours each year while they also collect retirement benefits.

The proposal: Proposition F would define “full-duty sworn officer” as a full-time officer except those on long-term leaves of absence, recruits at the Police Academy, and officers assigned to the San Francisco International Airport. The Police Chief would be required to make a report every three years, instead of two, on these officers and recommended future staffing. The Commission would report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the Department’s staffing. The City would establish a Deferred Retirement Option Program, or DROP, in which full-duty police officers in the ranks of Officer, Sergeant, and Inspector who are at least age 50 and have at least 25 years of eligible service could participate. Participants would work full-time for the Department at their current salary and benefit levels for up to five years, and must agree to perform neighborhood patrols or investigations. After their DROP period, participants must stop work for the City and would receive deferred pension payments with interest. The Board of Supervisors could limit DROP participants. DROP would be authorized for five years, and could be renewed by the Board of Supervisors.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to define “full-duty sworn officer,” require the Police Chief to make a report and recommend future staffing of those officers to the Police Commission every three years instead of two, require the Commission to report annually on Department staffing, and create a five-year renewable program allowing police officers to work for the Department after retiring, with pension payments deferred while they are working.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: SF Police Officers Association, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Stop Crime Action.

Supporters claim: Addresses needs of the understaffed police department by deferring retirement. Adds officers in critical areas of neighborhood patrols and
investigations. Minimizes costly overtime by keeping more officers working.

Opponents include: ACLU of Northern California, Asian Law Caucus, Chinese for Affirmative Action.

Opponents claim: Allows officers to earn a salary at the same time as accumulating retirement payments. This was tried from 2008 to 2011, and it does nothing to retain or recruit officers. No other public safety workers will have this benefit, even though they are also short staffed.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-F-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by Board of Supervisors President Peskin and Mayor Breed. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to require the City to appropriate at least $8.25 million a year to pay for rental subsidies for affordable housing developments serving extremely low-income households of seniors, families, and persons with disabilities?

Background: State law requires San Francisco to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels in the community. The City provides loans to acquire, build, or rehabilitate affordable housing units to meet the needs of low-income households (income not exceeding 80% of Area Median Income, or AMI). However, these loans do not fully subsidize the difference between the rents the owner charges and the amount extremely low-income households (income not exceeding 35% of AMI) can afford. Few housing units are offered at rents affordable to extremely low-income households. The City funds rental subsidies for a limited number of developments that make rental units available to extremely low-income seniors. The City provides these funds directly to the development owner. The City also provides rental subsidies for households that formerly experienced homelessness. There are no permanent state or federal grants or annual commitment from the City’s General Fund for these programs, and no equivalent programs for extremely low-income families or persons with disabilities.

The proposal: Proposition G would create an Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund. The City would be required to contribute to the fund beginning in fiscal year 2026–2027, at least $8.25 million a year and then until fiscal year 2045–2046, at least the prior year’s amount, adjusted by up to 3% based on City revenues. If the City’s projected budget deficit is $250 million or more in any year, the City may reduce its contribution as long as it contributes at least $4 million in 2026–2027 and at least $8.25 million each year after. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development would disburse the fund money to the owners of certain new and existing affordable housing developments in San Francisco to subsidize the rent of extremely low-income households consisting of seniors, families, or persons with disabilities. The funds would subsidize the difference between the amount these tenants can afford and the rent the owners charge. The Fund would end on December 31, 2046, unless voters reauthorize it.

👍 If you vote YES, you want the City to appropriate at least $8.25 million a year to pay for rental subsidies for affordable housing developments serving extremely low-income households of seniors, families, and persons with disabilities.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: Chinatown Community Development Center, Compass Family Services, Faith in Action, Council of Community Housing Organizations, Mission Housing, Self-Help for the Elderly.

Supporters claim: Opens over 500 new affordable housing units for seniors and families with extremely low incomes. Addresses the urgent need for truly affordable homes. Ensures that future affordable housing sites prioritize the most vulnerable. Maintains affordability of existing housing stock and prevents displacement.

Opponents include: Larry Marso.

Opponents claim: Drains critical resources from essential services like public safety and education. The City needs comprehensive housing reforms to streamline permitting and incentivize private investment. Subsidies are not effectively targeted, will drive up rents, and make housing even less affordable.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-G-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Stefani, Melgar, Safai, Chan, Peskin, Engardio, and Dorsey. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to change how pension benefits are calculated for members of the Fire Department hired on or after January 7, 2012, by lowering the age these members can receive the highest pension from 58 to 55, and make those benefits the same as members hired before January 7, 2012?

Background: The City provides its employees with pension benefits through the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, or SFERS. Employees who meet age and service requirements receive pension payments upon retirement. Members of the Fire Department are eligible to retire at age 50 if they have at least five years of credit for City service. A member’s pension generally increases with the member’s age, compensation, and number of years worked. The pension is a percentage of the member’s final compensation at retirement. SFERS calculates that percentage based on the member’s age at retirement and their number of years of City service. No member of the Fire Department may receive a pension that is more than 90% of their final compensation. Members of the Fire Department hired before January 7, 2012, could reach the 90% maximum percentage for their pension at age 55. Members hired on or after January 7, 2012, could reach that maximum three years later, at age 58.

The proposal: Proposition H would change pension benefits for members of the Fire Department hired on or after January 7, 2012. The age they can obtain the highest pension would lower from 58 to 55. This would make pension benefits for members hired on and after January 7, 2012, the same as for members hired before January 7, 2012.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to change how pension benefits are calculated for members of the Fire Department hired on or after January 7, 2012, by lowering the age these members can receive the highest pension from 58 to 55, and make those benefits the same as members hired before January 7, 2012.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: SF Firefighters Local 798.

Supporters claim: Firefighters face increased risk of cancer. This proposal reduces cancer risk, which increases after age 50. Standardizes the retirement age for all firefighters. Reduces rising worker’s compensation costs.

Opponents include: Libertarian Party of SF.

Opponents claim: People choose to become firefighters knowing the risks to their safety. Retirement age was determined by voters and known by those hired after January 7, 2012. Increases tax burden on residents.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-H-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Safai, Melgar, Preston, Walton, Chan, and Dorsey. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to allow registered nurses who are members of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System and meet certain requirements to purchase credits toward their total pension years of service for time previously worked as per diem nurses, and to allow 911 dispatchers, supervisors, and coordinators to increase their pension benefits by joining the SFERS Miscellaneous Safety Plan for time worked starting in January 2025?

Background: The City provides its employees with pension benefits through the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, or SFERS. SFERS calculates a retiree’s pension payment based on their final compensation, years of service, and retirement age. That calculation varies between plans. SFERS provides different plans based on job type, including: Miscellaneous Plans for 911 dispatchers, supervisors, and coordinators, and most other City employees; Safety Plans for uniformed employees of the Police and Fire Departments; and a Miscellaneous Safety Plan for certain probation officers, District Attorney investigators, and juvenile court counselors. In general, retirees receive greater pensions under Safety-level plans. Although 911 dispatchers are classified as first responders in California, they do not receive Safety-level pension benefits. City employees contribute a percentage of their salary toward retirement benefits. In some situations, employees may also purchase service credits to increase their pension benefits. A per diem nurse is a registered nurse employed by the City on an occasional and temporary basis. Per diem nurses are not members of SFERS and do not receive pension service credit for the per diem hours they work.

The proposal: Proposition I would allow eligible registered nurses to purchase service credit for hours they worked on a per diem basis. Registered nurses who are or become members of SFERS and have worked an average of 32 hours or more per week for at least one year could purchase up to three years of service credit for time they worked solely as per diem nurses for the City before becoming members of SFERS. 911 dispatchers, supervisors, and coordinators would move from the Miscellaneous Plans to the Miscellaneous Safety Plan for compensation they earn on and after January 4, 2025, pay more into the pension plan, and receive increased pension benefits at retirement.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to allow registered nurses who are members of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System and meet certain requirements to purchase credits toward their total pension years of service for time previously worked as per diem nurses, and to allow 911 dispatchers, supervisors, and coordinators to increase their pension benefits by joining the SFERS Miscellaneous Safety Plan for time worked starting in January 2025.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: SEIU Local 1021 and its RN Chapter.

Supporters claim: Improves recruitment and retention for these positions. Allows dispatchers to have the same benefits of other public safety professionals.

Opponents include: Libertarian Party of SF.

Opponents claim: Increases tax burden on residents. Dispatchers aren’t physically at risk and shouldn’t be included with those who put themselves in harm’s way.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-I-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Melgar, Ronen, Walton, Stefani, Safai, Dorsey, Engardio, Peskin, and Mandelman. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City amend the Charter to create an Our Children, Our Families Initiative to ensure that related funds are used effectively?

Background: The San Francisco Unified School District is separate from the City and operates the public school system. The school district receives some funding from the City. The City funds services for children, youth, and their families through programs including:

• Children and Youth Fund: Provides those up to 24 years of age with services including child care, healthcare, job training, social services, delinquency prevention, and educational, recreational, and cultural programs.
• Public Education Enrichment Fund, or PEEF: Supports early childhood education programs and general education programs, including art, music, sports, and libraries. 
• Student Success Fund: Provides the school district and individual schools money for programs that improve student academic achievement and social and emotional wellness.

The proposal: Proposition J would change the way the City evaluates funding for services to children, youth, and their families by monitoring outcomes. The City would create an Our Children, Our Families Initiative to be staffed by officials from the City and school district. The Initiative would evaluate expenditures from the Children and Youth Fund and PEEF to ensure those funds are used effectively. The Initiative would prepare an annual report for the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, who must approve these expenditures as part of the budget process. Every five years, the school district must submit a proposed plan to the Initiative on how it will use PEEF funds, and each year, report on how it spent the funds. The City’s future PEEF contributions to the school district would depend on the evaluation and approval of this proposal. The Student Success Fund would be revised so that money in that fund cannot replace money included or partially included in the baseline spending requirements for Children and Youth Fund, PEEF, or other similar provisions. There would be no change to the minimum contributions the City is required to make to the Children and Youth Fund, PEEF, or Student Success Fund.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to create an Our Children, Our Families Initiative to ensure that related funds are used effectively.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: School Board Members Lam and Fisher.

Supporters claim: Coordinates and aligns City departments and the school district to develop a unified plan to improve outcomes, accountability, and efficiency.

Opponents include: None provided in the Department of Elections’ materials.

Opponents claim: Adds steps to an already complex process, potentially slowing down the distribution of needed funds.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-J-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Ordinance. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Engardio, Melgar, Preston, Mandelman, and Dorsey. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City use the Upper Great Highway as public open recreation space, permanently closing it to private motor vehicles seven days a week, with limited exceptions?

Background: In April 2020, in response to the COVID–19 pandemic, the City closed the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard to private vehicles, creating a public open space for recreation. This full closure continued until August 2021, when the City changed it to apply only on weekends and holidays. In May 2022, the City implemented a pilot program to evaluate mobility, safety, and access in and around the Great Highway with Upper Great Highway closure on weekends, holidays, and Friday afternoons. The pilot ends on December 31, 2025, after which the Upper Great Highway will reopen to private vehicles full-time unless changes are made. The closure has created a popular recreational space, averaging 4,000 visitors per day during weekends, making it the third most visited park in the City’s Recreation and Parks system. The closure has improved access for residents to enjoy activities like walking, jogging, and biking along the coast, though full accessibility remains a challenge. The closure has also led to changed traffic patterns on nearby streets, causing concern among some people about congestion and safety.

The proposal: Proposition K would change the use of the Upper Great Highway from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard. It would permanently close this stretch to motor vehicles seven days a week, with some exceptions. Emergency vehicles, official government vehicles, intra-park transit shuttle buses, and similar authorized vehicles would still be allowed access at all times, and private vehicles could be authorized in emergencies. Within 180 days of voter approval of this proposition, the City would have to seek approvals for the permanent closure, including amendments to the City's General Plan and approvals under the California Coastal Act. The current pilot program would continue until those approvals are obtained or until December 31, 2025, whichever comes first. Park development would require additional processes for permits and funding, which would not be allocated by this proposition. The southern portion of the Upper Great Highway from Sloat to Skyline boulevards is scheduled to close permanently to cars by early 2026 due to coastal erosion, regardless of this proposition.

👍 If you vote YES, you want the City to use the Upper Great Highway as public open recreation space, permanently closing it to private motor vehicles seven days a week, with limited exceptions.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: 2nd Tuesday Climate Group, Grow the Richmond, Outer Sunset Neighbors, Richmond Family San Francisco, Northern Neighbors, Southside Forward, Kid Safe SF, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, Surfrider Foundation SF, SF League of Conservation Voters, SF Parks Alliance, Livable City, SPUR, Walk SF, SF Bicycle Coalition.

Supporters claim: Improves accessibility, increases park visitation, and boosts local businesses. Protects the coastal ecosystem by reducing vehicle pollution and supporting habitat restoration. Connects the soon-to-be-closed southern portion with the northern stretch, creating a continuous coastal recreational space.

Opponents include: Planning Association for the Richmond, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Open the Great Highway, Chinese American Democratic Club, Open Lake Street, ConnectedSF, Iconic D3.

Opponents claim: Eliminates a driving route. Vehicles will be diverted, increasing neighborhood traffic, noise, and safety risks. There are already recreational spaces and coastal bike/pedestrian paths.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-K-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Ordinance. Placed on the ballot by voter initiative by independent advocates Chris Arvin, Lian Chang, and Kat Siegal. Requires a simple majority vote to pass. But, if Proposition M passes with more votes than Proposition L, then Proposition L would have no legal effect. If Proposition L passes with more votes than Proposition M, both propositions would have legal effect.

The question: Shall the City create a new gross receipts tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses that provide passenger service for compensation and use the tax funds to support Muni transportation services and fare discount programs?

Background: The City collects taxes on gross receipts from many businesses in San Francisco. For most businesses, the gross receipts tax rate is between 0.053% and 1.008% of San Francisco gross receipts, with some rates scheduled to increase in coming years. The City imposes a per-ride tax on certain transportation businesses that provide prearranged rides originating in San Francisco. This tax applies to transportation network companies, which connect drivers to passengers, and businesses providing rides in some types of autonomous vehicles that can operate without a human driver. Transportation network companies do not include taxi or limousine services. The rate for that tax is between 1.5% and 3.25% of the fares for passenger rides within San Francisco. The Municipal Transportation Agency operates a public transportation system called Muni consisting of buses, light rail vehicles, streetcars, and cable cars.

The proposal: Proposition L would create a new gross receipts tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses, in addition to existing taxes. This new tax would be on passenger transportation service gross receipts in San Francisco above $500,000. The tax rates would be: 1% on taxable gross receipts from $500,000.01 to $1,000,000 ($1 million); 2.5% on receipts from $1,000,000.01 to $2,500,000 ($2.5 million); 3.5% on receipts from $2,500,000.01 to $25,000,000 ($25 million); and 4.5% on receipts over $25,000,000 ($25 million). The City would use these tax funds to preserve, maintain, or increase Muni public transit services; improve or preserve Muni service to public schools, libraries, and parks; and maintain or expand discount fare or fare-free programs for people with disabilities, seniors, youth, students, and low income individuals. The tax could be repealed by voters. It could be amended by a vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors if it does not undermine the intent of the tax.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to create a new gross receipts tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses that provide passenger service for compensation and use the tax funds to support Muni transportation services and fare discount programs.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: SF Transit Riders, Transport Workers Union Local 250A, Senior and Disability Action, Sierra Club, Kid Safe SF, Transform, Small Business Forward, Japantown Merchants Association, Taxi Workers Alliance, National Union of Healthcare Workers, League of Conservation Voters, Tenants Union.

Supporters claim: Provides funding for Muni to prevent cuts to service. Keeps transportation affordable for vulnerable residents. Protects transit options and gives fare discounts to those who need it most. Does not raise property or sales taxes on families struggling to get by.

Opponents include: Golden Gate Restaurant Association, TogetherSF Action, GrowSF, Advance SF, California Nightlife Association, Chamber of Commerce, sf.citi., Protect App-Based Drivers and Services, SF Hotel Council.

Opponents claim: Raises only a small fraction of the funding Muni needs. Increases cost of living without addressing Muni’s systemic issues. No accountability for how funds are spent. Harms people who rely on rideshares. Created without consulting with some business leaders.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-L-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Ordinance. Placed on the ballot by Mayor Breed and Supervisors Peskin, Mandelman, Stefani, Safai, Melgar, and Chan. Requires a simple majority vote to pass. If Proposition M passes with more votes than Proposition L, then Proposition L would have no legal effect. If Proposition L passes with more votes than Proposition M, both propositions would have legal effect.

The question: Shall the City make changes to the following taxes the City collects from businesses: the gross receipts tax, the homelessness gross receipts tax, the overpaid executive gross receipts tax, the administrative office tax, and business registration fees?

Background: The City annually collects various business taxes, including:

• Gross receipts tax: Percentage of a business’s San Francisco gross receipts. Depending on business type, the City calculates gross receipts based on sales in San Francisco, payroll expenses for employees working there, or both.
• Homelessness gross receipts tax: Additional tax on businesses with San Francisco gross receipts over $50 million. 
• Overpaid executive gross receipts tax : Additional tax on businesses whose highest-paid managerial employee earns at least 100 times more than the median compensation they pay their San Francisco employees.
• Business registration fee: Additional tax based on business type and gross receipts.
• Administrative office tax on payroll expenses: Paid by certain large businesses instead of the other taxes.

The proposal: Proposition M would change the City’s business taxes. 

• Gross receipts tax: Exempt businesses with gross receipts up to $5 million (currently $2.25 million); reduce business types to seven (currently 14); calculate San Francisco gross receipts more on sales and less on payroll, depending on business type; and change rates to between 0.1% and 3.716% (currently 0.053% to 1.008%). 
• Homelessness gross receipts tax: Apply it to businesses with San Francisco gross receipts over $25 million (currently $50 million), and change rates to between 0.162% and 1.64% (currently 0.175% to 0.69%).
• Overpaid executive gross receipts tax: Modify how the City calculates this tax and determines who pays it, and change rates to 0.02% to 0.129% (currently 0.1% to 0.6%).
• Business registration fee: Change to between $55 to $60,000 (currently $47 to $45,150).
• Administrative office tax rates: Change rates to between 2.97% and 3.694% (currently 3.04% to 5.44%), and adjust the registration fees for these businesses to between $500 and $35,000 (currently $19,682 to $45,928).

Some numbers would increase with inflation. These taxes would apply indefinitely until repealed.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to make these changes to the gross receipts tax, homelessness gross receipts tax, the overpaid executive gross receipts tax, the administrative office tax, and business registration fees.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: Golden Gate Restaurant Association, Council of District Merchants Associations, Chamber of Commerce, Hotel Council, Building and Construction Trades Council.

Supporters claim: Offers business tax relief and reduces license fees. Helps prevent largest businesses from leaving the City by fixing taxes that penalize them for having employees in the office. Simplifies our tax system, making it more predictable for businesses and the City.

Opponents include: Larry Marso.

Opponents claim: Introduces new tax rates that burden midsize to large employers. Increases taxes on larger businesses, which may force them to reduce investments, cut jobs, and reconsider operating here. Shifts the tax burden in unfair, inefficient ways to the detriment of the broader business community.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-M-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Ordinance. Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Safai, Walton, and Dorsey. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall the City create a fund that the City could use to help reimburse eligible City employees, including police officers, firefighters, sheriffs, paramedics, registered nurses, and 911 dispatchers, for student loans and education and training programs?

Background: The City reimburses its employees for some job-related educational and training expenses, but not student loans. There is not a fund into which the Board of Supervisors and Mayor can put City money or receive private donations to reimburse City employees’ student loans or job-related educational and training expenses. The Department of Human Resources oversees the hiring, development, support, and retention of the City’s workforce.

The proposal: Proposition N would create a City fund dedicated to helping reimburse eligible employees for their student loans and job-related educational and training expenses up to $25,000. Only sworn members of the Police, Fire, and Sheriff’s departments, paramedics, registered nurses, and 911 dispatchers, supervisors, or coordinators who meet certain requirements would be eligible. In the future, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor could decide to place City money into this fund, but would not be required to do so. The City could receive private donations into this fund. The Department of Human Resources would be allowed to create a program to provide these reimbursements for each eligible employee. These payments would only begin once the fund contains at least $1 million.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to create a fund that the City could use to help reimburse eligible City employees, including police officers, firefighters, sheriffs, paramedics, registered nurses, and 911 dispatchers, for student loans and education and training programs.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to create this fund.

Supporters include: SEIU Local 1021, SF Police Officers Association, SF Deputy Sheriff’s Association, Firefighters Local 798.

Supporters claim: Improves the City’s ability to recruit and retain first responders. Encourages first responders to advance their skills.

Opponents include: Larry Marso.

Opponents claim: Uses taxpayer money to pay off personal debt, while not addressing the cause of the student debt. First responders may leave or retire once student loans are paid off.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-N-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Ordinance. Placed on the ballot by Mayor Breed. Requires a simple majority vote to pass.

The question: Shall it be City policy and law to support, protect, and expand reproductive rights and services?

Background: Some health clinics in San Francisco offer reproductive healthcare, including abortions and emergency contraception. Limited services pregnancy centers, which are generally aligned with the anti-abortion and anti-choice movement, provide select types of care, but not abortions or emergency contraception. They are prohibited from providing untrue or misleading information, but are not required to inform patients about all their reproductive care choices. Reproductive health clinics of all kinds are usually limited to the ground floor of buildings in certain parts of the city. A 2022 Supreme Court decision severely reduced protections for people seeking abortions and other reproductive care. As a result, many states effectively outlawed abortion, emergency contraception and in-vitro fertilization are at risk, and more people are traveling to other states to receive reproductive care, including abortions. Some states with abortion bans are making it difficult or impossible for people to obtain abortions elsewhere. California law prohibits cooperation with law enforcement by providing information about abortions performed in the state.

The proposal: Proposition O would establish a Reproductive Freedom Fund to receive donations to support reproductive rights and services. The City would create a website with a list of clinics, including those that provide abortions and emergency contraception and limited services pregnancy centers. The City would be allowed to post signs outside limited services pregnancy centers to let the public know those facilities do not provide abortions and emergency contraception, and where to get those services. City-funded healthcare locations that provide abortions would not be allowed to require providers to have additional medical qualifications beyond what’s required by law. City officials would be prohibited from cooperating with state or federal investigations into a person’s reproductive care choices. The City’s zoning law would be changed to allow reproductive care clinics in more parts of San Francisco.

👍 If you vote YES, you want City policy and law to support, protect, and expand reproductive rights and services.

👎 If you vote NO, you do not want to make these changes.

Supporters include: Essential Access Health, Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Club, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Club, SF Young Democrats.

Supporters claim: Ensures that contraception, abortion, and prenatal care remain accessible. Protects healthcare providers from politically motivated prosecution. Ensures individuals can make healthcare decisions for themselves.

Opponents include: Pro-Life San Francisco.

Opponents claim: Unfairly requires signs outside limited services pregnancy centers. Designates funds for clinics that provide abortions and takes it from clinics that do not. Allows abortion clinics in new parts of the city.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2024-Nov-Prop-O-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2024-Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard