Pros & Cons Guide

Charter amendment

Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Chen, Dorsey, Mahmood, Mandelman, Melgar, Sauter, Sherrill, Walton, and Wong.

The question: Shall the City change its Charter to alter or eliminate certain commissions, modify department operations and reporting requirements, and make other revisions?

Background: The City Charter sets the rules for how San Francisco's government is organized and run, including the powers and duties of many City officials, departments, and commissions. The Municipal Code covers other government operations. Commissions — which also include boards, task forces, councils, and advisory bodies — oversee or advise the government on specific issues, programs, and departments, and let people volunteer and shape City policy.

The proposal: Proposition A would revise the Charter to alter many commissions and eliminate others, modify department operations and reporting requirements, and make other changes to how government is organized and run. Many commissions would be moved from the Charter, which only voters can change, into the Municipal Code, which the Board of Supervisors can change without voter approval. It would reduce the responsibilities and authority of certain commissions and make qualifications for many commissioners optional instead of required. The general requirement for all commissions to produce an annual public report would be eliminated.

The proposition would make many other changes beyond commissions, including:

• The City Administrator would manage more real estate deals.
• Supervisors would approve legal settlements by resolution instead of ordinance, with a resolution requiring only one vote and providing less time for public review.
• The Public Utilities Commission's authority would expand to include infrastructure design, and it would no longer have to keep utility funds in separate City treasury accounts.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to change the City Charter to alter or eliminate certain commissions, modify department operations and reporting requirements, and make other revisions.

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

Supporters include: Mayor Lurie.

Supporters claim: Charter cleaning and modernizing are good housekeeping. Removing duplicate government reports and inactive commissions reduces waste. Supervisors should handle small fixes through legislation.

Opponents include: Coalition on Homelessness.

Opponents claim: Removing commissions decreases public participation needed for healthy government, and making qualifications optional increases political patronage. Letting supervisors change or eliminate the Our City Our Home Oversight Committee, which oversees spending on housing and services for unhoused residents, could slow progress on homelessness.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-A-fiscal-impact 
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard 

Charter amendment

Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Chan, Chen, Dorsey, Fielder, Mahmood, Mandelman, Melgar, Sauter, and Walton.

The question: Shall the City be allowed to set up a municipal finance corporation and public bank?

Background: A municipal finance corporation is a lender owned by the City. It can make loans and investments, but can’t accept deposits or hold bank accounts for customers. A public bank works more like a regular bank that the City owns and runs, instead of a private company. A municipal finance corporation has fewer rules it must follow because its work is more limited than a public bank’s. Right now, there is no local law that lets the City set up a municipal finance corporation or public bank.

The proposal: Proposition B would revise the Charter to allow the City to set up a municipal finance corporation once it has enough money and resources to do so. The municipal finance corporation could invest in initiatives such as the San Francisco Climate Action Plan, as well as affordable and social housing, which have already been approved but lack capital to begin construction. After three to five years of profitable operation, and after getting approval from regulators, the municipal finance corporation could become a public bank. An oversight commission would monitor the municipal finance corporation’s management and spending.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to allow the City to establish a municipal finance corporation and public bank.

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

Supporters include: SF Foundation, SF Public Bank Coalition, SF Labor Council, SF Climate Emergency Coalition, Affordable Housing Alliance, SF Tenants Union.

Supporters claim: Managed properly by banking professionals, not politicians, with public oversight. Allows access to new funding sources for City initiatives. Helps

struggling small businesses with affordable loans, avoiding high-interest, predatory private loans and personal debt.

Opponents include: Leslie Huang, Dorothy Joan Leone, Kathleen Louise Trewin, Stephanie Jeong.

Opponents claim: Incurs high startup costs of over $300 million while the City already has massive budget shortfalls. Could increase high risk lending, with losses

landing on taxpayers. Already have tools to support small businesses, climate projects, and affordable housing. Adds unnecessary risk and complexity.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-B-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Charter amendment

Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Chan, Chen, Dorsey, Fielder, Mahmood, Mandelman, Melgar, Sauter, Sherrill, Walton, and Wong.

The question: Shall the City increase its yearly contribution to the Housing Trust Fund and expand affordable housing programs?

Background: In 2012, voters approved Proposition C, creating the Housing Trust Fund to support affordable housing construction, repairs, and homebuyer assistance. This year, the City contributed $52 million into the Housing Trust Fund. The annual amount is adjusted up or down based on the City’s overall revenue. Area Median Income is a measure of how much local households earn that the City uses to decide who is eligible for many affordable housing programs.

The proposal: Proposition C would revise the Charter to gradually increase the City’s contributions to the Housing Trust Fund until they reach $125 million a year. These contributions could be paused or lowered during major budget deficits or drops in revenue. More people would be allowed to qualify for down-payment loans through an increase to the income limit from 120% to 200% of the Area Median Income, and Supervisors could change the income limit without voter approval. The Housing Trust Fund could support more types of affordable housing, including social

housing and co-ops, and provide direct funding for housing-related infrastructure, such as street, sidewalk, and utility projects. The end date of the Housing Trust Fund would be extended from 2043 to 2058.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to increase the City’s yearly contribution to the Housing Trust Fund and expand affordable housing programs.

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

Supporters include: Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, San Franciscans for Social Housing, Castro LGBTQ Cultural District, Council of Community Housing Organizations, Build Affordable Faster CA, TODCO, YIMBY Action, SF Democratic Party.

Supporters claim: More programs and budget for affordable housing would ensure families, first responders, teachers, essential workers, and more can remain in the community. Makes room in the City budget for affordable housing without raising taxes.

Opponents include: SF Republican Party.

Opponents claim: Lets supervisors raise the income limit again anytime without voter approval. Expands eligibility for the Housing Trust Fund, adding new uses like social housing and co-ops, all competing for the same dollars.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-C-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Charter amendment

Placed on the ballot by signature initiative. The proponent of the initiative is Mayor Lurie.

The question: Shall the City eliminate the ability of the Mayor or a minority of four or more Supervisors to place ordinances and policy declarations on the ballot, and increase the thresholds for signature initiatives?

Background: Ordinances are local laws, and policy declarations are non-binding statements. These can get on the ballot several ways, including the Mayor acting alone, four or more Supervisors acting together, a majority vote of six

Supervisors, or a signature initiative. To qualify for the ballot, a signature initiative's backers must collect a set number of signatures from registered voters on an official petition. Signature initiatives are usually voted on at the next regular election, but can lead to an earlier special election with enough additional signatures. In 2022, voters passed Proposition H, changing the threshold for signature initiatives for regular elections from 5% of votes cast in the previous mayoral race to 2% of registered voters in San Francisco.

The proposal: Proposition D would revise the Charter to eliminate the ability of the Mayor or a minority of four or more Supervisors acting together to place ordinances and policy declarations on the ballot.

The proposition would also raise the thresholds for signature initiatives to qualify for the ballot (state law sets the rules for Charter amendments, so those would not change):

• For regular elections: The requirement would quadruple, from 2% to 8% of registered voters. That’s about 31,800 more signatures than currently required, rising from roughly 10,600 to 42,400 signatures, based on recent data.
• For special elections: The threshold would increase from 10% of votes cast in the previous mayoral race to 10% of registered voters. That’s about 14,000 more signatures than currently required, rising from roughly 39,000 to 53,000, based on recent data.

These signature initiatives could be withdrawn up to 102 days before an election, which is not currently allowed.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to eliminate the ability of the Mayor or a minority of four or more Supervisors to place ordinances and policy declarations directly on the ballot, and increase the thresholds for signature initiatives.

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

Supporters include: SF Democratic Party, Teamsters Local 665, SF Council of District Merchants Associations, Chinatown History and Culture Association.

Supporters claim: Gives more voters a voice on what gets on ballots. San Francisco is the only California city that lets 2% of voters, a minority of Supervisors,

or the Mayor add to the ballot without transparency or community support. Ballots become shorter and less confusing, with more open debate and public input.

Opponents include: SF Labor Council, SF Senior and Disability Action, United Educators of SF, SF Women’s Political Committee, SF Tenants Union, Indivisible SF, Community Tenants Association, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, SF Rising Action Fund.

Opponents claim: Robs voters of a right they’ve had for 125 years and reduces democratic participation. Signature initiatives have shaped decades of major policy on community issues. Large signature requirements price out neighborhood

groups, labor unions, and community advocates, so only wealthy interests can get initiatives on the ballot.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-D-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Charter amendment

Placed on the ballot by signature initiative. The proponent of the initiative is Mayor Lurie.

The question: Shall the City expand the City Administrator's authority over purchasing and contracting, raise the dollar amounts of contracts that can be implemented without Board of Supervisors approval, and double the City Administrator's term from 5 years to 10 years?

Background: The City Administrator is a government official who manages contracting for many City departments, and oversees certain City technology decisions. They are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of

Supervisors, not elected. The Board of Supervisors must approve contracts over certain dollar amounts. Currently, the rules for the City’s purchasing, contracting, and technology are set by a mix of the City Administrator’s Office, the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and some other departments and commissions.

The proposal: Proposition E would revise the Charter to increase the City Administrator's authority. It would:

• Give the City Administrator sole authority to propose most new contracting and purchasing ordinances, which would become law unless the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor rejects them within 60 days.
• Allow the City Administrator to set purchasing rules that override conflicting department rules, and set citywide technology policy.
• Extend the City Administrator’s authority to currently exempt departments, including the Municipal Transportation Agency, Public Utilities Commission, Airport, Port, and some arts departments.
• Double the City Administrator's term from 5 years to 10 years, including the term already in progress.

It would also raise the dollar amounts of contracts that can be implemented without Board of Supervisors approval:

• For contracts and leases that bring in money: The threshold would be raised from $1 million to $4.5 million.
• For contracts that cost money: The threshold would be raised from $10 million to $25 million.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to expand the City Administrator's authority over purchasing and contracting, raise the dollar amounts of contracts that can be implemented without Board of Supervisors approval, and double the City

Administrator's term from 5 years to 10 years.

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

Supporters include: SF Democratic Party, Firefighters Local 798, SF Building Trades, Teamsters Local 665, Council of District Merchants Associations, Chinatown History and Culture Association.

Supporters claim: Cuts city contracting waste. Stops corruption by setting transparent standards. Brings more accountability.

Opponents include: Larry S. Marso.

Opponents claim: Treats the system of checks and balances as the enemy. This could be delivered by passing changes legislatively. The Mayor seeks permanent new executive power.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-E-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Charter amendment

Placed on the ballot by signature initiative. The proponent of the initiative is Mayor Lurie.

The question: Shall the City give the Mayor more control over government by making commissioners easier to remove for any reason and by letting the Mayor hire and fire most department heads, reorganize departments without a public vote, and hire deputy mayors to oversee departments?

Background: The City Charter sets the rules for how San Francisco's government is organized and run. Because most City officials, departments, and commissions are written into the Charter, changing their powers and duties usually requires a public vote. Commissions oversee or advise the government on specific issues, programs, and departments, and let people volunteer and shape City policy. Currently, most departments are run by a department head who answers to a commission, and most commissioners can only be removed for cause, such as fraud or neglect of duty.

The proposal: Proposition F would revise the Charter to give the Mayor more control over government by making many changes to City departments and commissions, including:

• Make most commissioners removable for any reason by whoever appointed them, which is usually the Mayor, Supervisors, or other City officials. Change who appoints certain commissioners.
• Give the Mayor power to fire most department heads for any reason, and without the commission approval currently required. Commissions could no longer remove department heads.
• Remove the Police Commission’s power to remove the Chief of Police, leaving that authority with the Mayor alone.
• Reduce the minimum number of candidate names a commission gives the Mayor for hiring most department heads from three to one. Let the Mayor hire certain department heads directly, skipping commission input entirely.
• Expand the Mayor’s authority over the pay and contracts of certain department heads.
• Remove the ban, approved by voters in 1991, on letting the Mayor hire deputy mayors to oversee departments.
• Allow the Mayor to reorganize or merge most departments without a public vote, instead just notifying the Supervisors, who could object. Charter-required duties couldn’t be eliminated, only moved elsewhere.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to give the Mayor more control over government by making commissioners easier to remove for any reason and by letting the Mayor hire and fire most department heads, reorganize departments without a public vote, and hire deputy mayors to oversee departments.

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

Supporters include: SF Democratic Party, Firefighters Local 798, SF Building Trades, Teamsters 665, Council of District Merchant Associations, Chinatown History and Culture Association, SPUR, SEIU 87, SF Chamber of Commerce, Noe Valley Merchants, Hotel Council.

Supporters claim: Gives the Mayor more power to choose who to hire and fire. Creates clear lines of accountability between the Mayor and department heads. Allows the Mayor to restructure departments for better service delivery.

Opponents include: Small Business Forward, Democratic Socialists SF.

Opponents claim: Removes essential checks and balances, concentrating too much power in the Mayor and weakening commission independence and oversight. Enables changes to departments and leadership without public hearings or input. Favors the Mayor and wealthy contributors who spent millions of dollars to put this on the ballot.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-F-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Ordinance

Placed on the ballot by signature initiative. The proponent of the initiative is Richard Corriea.

The question: Shall the City close Sunset Dunes Park to pedestrians and public recreation from Monday to Friday, and instead open the Great Highway to cars and other private vehicles?

Background: In 2020, during the COVID–19 pandemic, the City closed the Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard to private vehicles, creating a public open space for recreation. In 2022, voters rejected Proposition I, which would have opened the Great Highway to private vehicles. In 2024, voters approved Proposition K, which converted the road into Sunset Dunes Park, closing it to private vehicles at all times, with exceptions for emergency, government, and park vehicles. According to the city’s Recreation and Parks Department, Sunset Dunes Park had over 1.7 million visits in its first year, with 53% happening on weekdays.

The proposal: Proposition G would close Sunset Dunes Park to pedestrians and public recreation on weekdays from Monday at 4:00 am through Friday at 6:00 pm, except certain holidays. Instead, cars and other private vehicles would be allowed on the Great Highway during those times. A supermajority of eight supervisors could modify small details about Great Highway administration, but changes to the days and times private vehicles can use the road, or other major changes, would require voter approval.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to close Sunset Dunes Park to pedestrians and public recreation from early Monday morning through Friday evening, and instead open the Great Highway to cars and private vehicles.

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

Supporters include: Chinese American Democratic Club, SF Taxpayers Association,

Richmond District Democratic Club.

Supporters claim: Provides safe streets and great parks. Traffic injuries in the Sunset have risen. This restores the compromise. Every San Franciscan deserves safe streets, whether they're walking, biking, taking Muni, or driving. The road closure means slower, less direct routes, and more emissions.

Opponents include: Sierra Club, Outer Sunset Neighbors, Sunset Merchants Association, Sunset Parent Advocates, SPUR, Westside Collective, Sunset Community Band, Far Out West Community Garden, SF League of Conservation Voters, Surfrider SF, Golden Gate Bird Alliance.

Opponents claim: The Sunset is safer thanks to the park. Car crashes are down. Traffic is flowing fine, with most routes unaffected. Local business revenue is up. Opening the park to cars will cost about $10 million to $14 million, then another $1.9 million every year. The coast belongs to all, not just the lucky few who live near it.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-G-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Ordinance

Placed on the ballot by signature initiative. The proponents of the initiative are Kat Siegal, Rodney Fong, and Tony Delorio.

The question: Shall the City increase funding for Muni through a new yearly parcel tax?

Background: Muni is San Francisco's public transit system, including buses and light rail, run by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, or SFMTA. The agency is now in a financial crisis, caused by a steep drop in Muni ridership during the pandemic and the end of emergency federal funding. SFMTA’s deficit is expected to reach $307 million by 2027 and grow to $398 million by 2030. Without new funding, SFMTA says it may need to eliminate up to 20 Muni routes, double wait times on other lines, and significantly cut late-night service.

The proposal: Proposition H would create a new parcel tax to pay for Muni operations, based on a property's type and size, not its value. The tax would last for 15 years, starting in 2027, and be adjusted for inflation.

• Single-family homes and condos: $129 flat rate a year for 3,000 square feet or less. Larger homes pay that base rate plus 42 cents per square foot from 3,001 to 5,000 square feet, and $1.99 per square foot over 5,000.
• Multi-family buildings: $249 flat rate a year for 5,000 square feet or less. Larger buildings pay that base rate plus 19.5 cents per square foot over 5,000, capped at $50,000.
• Commercial and mixed-use buildings: $799 flat rate a year for 5,000 square feet or less. Larger buildings pay that base rate plus a fee that increases with property size, capped at $400,000.
• Vacant land: $0 (zero) for 2,000 square feet or less, or $392 flat rate if larger.
• Some properties would not be taxed, including single-room occupancy housing, and government and nonprofit buildings. Owners age 65 or older who live in their home would pay a reduced tax or none at all. Rent-controlled building owners could pass through up to 50% of the tax to tenants, capped at $65 per unit per year. Supervisors could change or end the tax without voter approval.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to create this new parcel tax to pay for Muni operations.

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

Supporters include: SF Democratic Party, SF Tenants Union, SF Labor Council, SF Chamber of Commerce, SF Council of District Merchants, Firefighters Local 798, Transit Workers Union 250A, Teamsters Local 665, Chinatown TRIP.

Supporters claim: Muni is essential for seniors, many of whom don’t drive, and downtown workers, 40% of whom use it to commute. Reduced Muni service could stall the City’s economic recovery. SFMTA has already cut staff and management costs to streamline its budget. 95% of homeowners will be taxed just $129 the first year. Owners of large commercial real estate pay the most.

Opponents include: SF Republican Party, Business League.

Opponents claim: Asks owners to fund a $300 million deficit for 15 years with no strings attached. Doesn’t require SFMTA to cut costs, hit efficiency targets, or act on a spending review before receiving the money. A tax based on square footage, not property value, is not a fair tax. Doesn’t spare renters.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-H-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Ordinance

Placed on the ballot by signature initiative. The proponents of the initiative are Yolanda Porrata, Tuesday Rose Thornton, and Scott Feeney. While Proposition I and Proposition J don’t seem to conflict, Proposition I would win if there are any conflicts.

The question: Shall the City dedicate half of the tax revenue on the transfer of properties worth $10 million or more to a fund for affordable housing programs?

Background: When real estate changes hands, the City collects a Real Property Transfer Tax based on the property’s sale price or value. Properties worth $10 million or more are taxed at the highest rates of 5.5% or 6.0%. Currently, the

City uses all of the revenue from this tax for general needs.

The proposal: Proposition I would change how the City spends transfer tax revenue from properties worth $10 million or more. Half would still be part of the Real Property Transfer Tax and go to the City’s general needs. The other half, called the House SF Tax, would go into a new House SF Fund used only for specific affordable housing purposes:

• At least 60% on affordable housing production, including social housing and multi-family housing.
• At least 25% to buy or fix affordable housing.
• At least 10% to help people stay in their homes, including eviction prevention and emergency rent assistance.
• Up to 5% for administrative costs, with any leftover money spent on affordable housing.

Some properties would not be taxed, including certain newly built multi-unit residential buildings and properties exempt from the Real Property Transfer Tax. Supervisors could make changes that match the purposes of the tax or

exempt rent-restricted affordable housing. Voters would need to approve other changes.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to dedicate half of the tax revenue on the transfer of properties worth $10 million or more to a fund for affordable housing programs.

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

Supporters include: Affordable Housing Alliance, SF Tenants Union, Small Business Forward, United Educators of SF, SEIU 1021, Council of Community Housing Coalitions, Faith in Action Bay Area, Senior and Disability Action, Anti Displacement Coalition, Community Tenants Association, Housing Rights Committee, Tenants Together, Democratic Socialists SF, San Franciscans for Social Housing.

Supporters claim: Creates affordable housing the city needs without raising taxes. Encourages new housing by cutting the transfer tax on new construction. Requires the City to carry out the will of the voters, who in 2020 approved using the tax on luxury real estate sales for affordable housing, a promise which politicians have ignored.

Opponents include: SF Taxpayers Association, SF Building and Construction

Trades Council.

Opponents claim: Taking money away from general needs makes the City less flexible to respond to other important issues. Could reduce other City services such as first responders, street cleaning, and public parks. Doesn’t require building any specific number of housing units.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-I-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard

Ordinance

Placed on the ballot by Supervisors Chan, Chen, Dorsey, Fielder, Mahmood, Mandelman, Melgar, Sauter, Sherrill, and Wong. Also co-sponsored by Supervisor Walton, who was excused from the Supervisors’ final vote. While Proposition I and

Proposition J don’t seem to conflict, Proposition I would win if there are any  conflicts.

The question: Shall the City end the Real Property Transfer Tax exemption for foreclosures on commercial properties and large buildings with five or more residential units, so these transfers are taxed on the property’s full value?

Background: When most real estate changes hands, the City collects a Real Property Transfer Tax. Lenders get an exemption to this tax when they take ownership of a property through foreclosure, or when a borrower hands over a

property to avoid the foreclosure process, called a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Instead of paying tax on the property’s full fair market value, lenders are only taxed on the amount above the unpaid debt. As a result, these transfers owe

little to no tax. Currently, this foreclosure exemption applies to all property.

The proposal: Proposition J would end the foreclosure exemption to the Real Property Transfer Tax for commercial properties, large residential buildings with five or more units or multiple floors of non-residential space, and hotels and

other short-term lodging. Starting in 2027, these transfers would be taxed on the property’s full fair market value. The foreclosure exemption would still cover single-family homes, condominiums, co-ops, live/work units, and small residential buildings with four or fewer units and no more than one floor of non-residential space.

👍 If you vote YES, you want to end the Real Property Transfer Tax exemption for foreclosures on commercial properties and large buildings with five or more residential units, so these transfers are taxed on the property’s full value.

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

Supporters include: SEIU 1021, SEIU 2015, Teamsters Local 665, SF Democratic Party.

Supporters claim: Closes a loophole used by big corporate lenders, not just the struggling homeowners and families the original 1984 tax break was meant to protect. Raises between $100 million and $150 million a year for the City. Helps close the budget shortfall without cutting services. Homeowners and small residential buildings keep their exemption.

Opponents include: SF Taxpayers Association.

Opponents claim: No other major California city taxes corporate lenders for foreclosures, making San Francisco lending riskier and more expensive. Lenders

will respond with higher interest rates or bigger down-payment requirements, and may avoid local real estate. Discourages investment in larger multi-family properties and commercial buildings.

More information:

• Controller’s analysis of fiscal impact (PDF): bit.ly/2026Nov-Prop-J-fiscal-impact
• Ethics Commission list of campaign contributors: bit.ly/2026Nov-campaign-finance-dashboard