(SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. ) — San Francisco voters will consider 10 local ballot measures, several statewide propositions and a regional transit funding measure in the November 3, 2026, election.
Proposition A: Charter Amendment - Department, Board, Commission, and Advisory Body Updates
Proposition A would revise the San Francisco City Charter by modifying the structure, authority and reporting requirements of city commissions.
According to Ballotpedia, Prop A reduces the number of boards and commissions in the City Charter from 55 to 38, by moving 9 into the Municipal Code and eliminating or merging 8 others. The latter change would allow the Board of Supervisors to modify those commissions through legislation rather than requiring voter approval of charter amendments.
Commissions that have sat idle for years are eliminated, like the Special Strike Committee, which a state labor board ruled can no longer legally convene. So are commissions that still meet but no longer serve a purpose, like the Sanitation and Streets Commission, which oversees a department that no longer exists.
The 9 commissions that move into the Municipal Code, like the Human Services Commission, keep operating as they do today, but the Board could later change or dissolve them by ordinance instead of by ballot measure.
Finally, Prop A repeats this review every ten years: starting in 2035, the City must convene a new Commission Streamlining Task Force to go through every board and commission again, so the Board of Supervisors can keep the count down and close any that have stopped serving a purpose.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters describe the measure as an effort to modernize city government, eliminate duplicative reporting requirements and remove inactive commissions. They argue that the changes would improve administrative efficiency and allow supervisors to address relatively minor government changes through legislation.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that reducing the number and authority of commissions would weaken public participation and government oversight. They also contend that making commissioner qualifications optional could increase political patronage. The presentation specifically raised concerns about potential changes to the oversight structure responsible for monitoring spending on housing and services for unhoused residents.
The measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, with Mayor Daniel Lurie identified in the presentation as its principal supporter, and the League of Women Voters as an opponent.
Proposition B: Municipal Finance Corporation and Public Bank
Proposition B would authorize San Francisco to establish a municipal finance corporation and potentially a public bank, provided the city establishes separate funding for the initiative.
The measure would not immediately create a public bank. Instead, it would establish the legal framework for a municipal finance corporation that could provide loans and investments for projects that struggle to obtain conventional financing, including affordable housing, small businesses and climate initiatives. According to a presentation by the League of Women Voters, the institution could become a public bank after three to five years of profitable operations and regulatory approval.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters say a municipal finance corporation could create new financing opportunities for city initiatives and provide small businesses with more affordable loans, potentially reducing their reliance on high-interest private lending. They argue that professional banking management and public oversight could help the institution operate responsibly.
Organizations identified as supporters included the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition, the San Francisco Foundation, the San Francisco Labor Council, the Climate Emergency Coalition, the Affordable Housing Alliance and the San Francisco Tenants Union.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents characterize the proposal as financially risky, pointing to potential startup costs exceeding $300 million and the city’s existing budget shortfalls. They argue that lending losses could ultimately affect taxpayers and that San Francisco already has other mechanisms to support small businesses, affordable housing and climate projects.
Proposition C: Increased Contributions to the Housing Trust Fund
Proposition C would gradually increase the city’s annual contribution to the Housing Trust Fund to $125 million and expand eligibility for certain affordable housing programs.
The measure would also increase the income limit for down-payment assistance loans from 120% to 200% of area median income, potentially allowing more households to qualify.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters argue that increased housing funding would help families, teachers, first responders and other essential workers afford to remain in San Francisco. They contend that the measure would dedicate more resources to affordable housing without raising taxes.
Supporters identified in the presentation included the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Franciscans for Social Housing, the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District, Build Affordable Faster California and the San Francisco Democratic Party.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that the proposal could expand eligibility and introduce additional uses for the Housing Trust Fund without providing a corresponding increase in funding for all competing needs. They also raised concerns that the Board of Supervisors could increase the income eligibility limit again in the future without another vote of the public.
Proposition D: Changes to the Ballot Measure Process
Proposition D would change how certain local ballot measures qualify for the ballot. It would 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 signature threshold for citizen initiatives.
The measure would raise the signature requirement for qualifying initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters. Moretz explained that this would increase the number of signatures required from approximately 10,600 to 42,400. The proposal would not change the rules governing charter amendments, which are controlled by state law.
The measure was placed on the ballot through a signature initiative, with Mayor Lurie identified as its proponent.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters say the proposal would reduce ballot clutter, encourage broader public debate and ensure that measures reaching voters have greater community support. They argue that San Francisco's existing rules make it unusually easy for a small number of elected officials or voters to place measures on the ballot.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents contend that increasing the signature threshold would make direct democracy less accessible. They argue that the higher requirement could disadvantage neighborhood organizations, labor unions and community advocates while favoring wealthy individuals and organizations capable of funding large signature-gathering campaigns.
Supporters identified in the presentation included the San Francisco Democratic Party, Teamsters Local 665 and the Council of District Merchants Associations. Opponents included the San Francisco Labor Council, United Educators of San Francisco, the San Francisco Tenants Union and the San Francisco Women's Political Committee.
Proposition E: Expanded City Administrator Authority Over Contracting
Proposition E would expand the city administrator’s authority over purchasing and contracting, increase the dollar thresholds for certain contracts that can proceed without Board of Supervisors approval and extend the city administrator’s term from five years to 10 years.
The measure would also allow certain contracting and purchasing rules to take effect unless rejected by the mayor or Board of Supervisors. It would expand the city administrator’s authority to departments currently exempt from some of these requirements, including the Public Utilities Commission, the Airport and the Port.
The approval threshold for certain contracts would increase from $1 million to $4.5 million. For revenue-generating contracts, the threshold would rise from $10 million to $25 million.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters argue that the measure would streamline city contracting, reduce waste and establish more consistent purchasing standards. They say clearer rules could improve transparency and accountability.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that the measure would weaken the city's system of checks and balances by concentrating more administrative authority in the executive branch. They contend that similar reforms could be achieved through ordinary legislation and warn that the proposal would grant the mayor's administration greater long-term power.
The measure was placed on the ballot through a signature initiative. Supporters identified in the presentation included the San Francisco Democratic Party, Firefighters Local 798, Teamsters Local 665 and the San Francisco Building Trades.
Proposition F: Expanded Mayoral Control Over City Departments
Proposition F would increase the mayor’s authority over city government by making commissioners easier to remove, allowing the mayor to hire and dismiss most department heads directly, permitting departmental reorganizations without a public vote and creating deputy mayor positions to oversee departments.
The measure would also transfer certain powers currently held by commissions to the mayor, including the power to remove the chief of police, which the presentation identified as a responsibility of the Police Commission under the existing structure.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters argue that the proposal would establish clearer lines of accountability, give the mayor greater flexibility to appoint leadership and allow departments to be reorganized to improve public services.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents say the measure would weaken independent oversight and concentrate excessive power in the mayor's office. They also argue that reorganizing departments and changing leadership without public hearings could reduce transparency and limit opportunities for community input.
The measure was placed on the ballot through a signature initiative, with Mayor Lurie identified as its proponent. Supporters included the San Francisco Democratic Party, firefighters' and building trades organizations, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and SEIU 87. Opponents included Small Business Forward and the Democratic Socialists of San Francisco.
Proposition G: Reopening the Great Highway to Private Vehicles
Proposition G would change access rules for Sunset Dunes Park and the Great Highway, reopening the roadway to private vehicles Monday through Friday while restricting pedestrian and public recreational access to the park during those periods.
The measure would reverse the current arrangement that allows the area to serve as a recreational space rather than a regular traffic route during the relevant weekdays.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters argue that reopening the Great Highway would restore a balance between transportation and recreation. They say the closure has contributed to less direct driving routes and increased emissions, and they contend that reopening the roadway could improve traffic circulation and street safety.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that the park has improved safety and that traffic continues to flow adequately under the current arrangement. They also cite increased local business revenue associated with Sunset Dunes Park and warn that reopening the roadway could cost approximately $10 million to $14 million, followed by an estimated $1.9 million in annual maintenance expenses.
\Chinese American Democratic Club, the San Francisco Taxpayers Association and the Richmond District Democratic Club are among the supporters. Opponents included the Outer Sunset Neighbors, Sunset Merchants Association, Sunset Parent Advocates, the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, Surfrider San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bird Alliance.
Proposition H: Parcel Tax to Fund Muni Operations
Proposition H would establish a recurring parcel tax to support San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) operations, including Muni service.
The proposed tax would vary by property type. According to the presentation, the starting annual rates would be $129 for single-family homes, $249 for multifamily properties and $799 for commercial real estate. Certain exemptions or reduced rates would apply, such as those who are 65 and older having to pay $0 per year in single family homes, and $0 a year in a multifamily property below 5,000 sq. feet.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters argue that additional revenue is necessary to preserve public transit service and prevent service reductions that could affect seniors, downtown workers, people with disabilities and others who depend on Muni. They contend that cuts could undermine the city's economic recovery and say the transit agency has already taken steps to reduce staffing and management costs.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that the measure would require property owners to help cover a projected $300 million deficit over 15 years without sufficiently binding requirements for cost reductions, efficiency targets or spending reviews. They also contend that a parcel tax based on property type rather than property value could be inequitable and that costs could ultimately affect renters.
Supporters identified included the San Francisco Democratic Party, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the San Francisco Labor Council, the Chamber of Commerce, transit workers' organizations and firefighters' and teamsters' organizations. Opponents included the San Francisco Republican Party and the Business League.
Proposition I: Dedicated Funding for Affordable Housing
Proposition I would direct half of the city's real property transfer tax revenue from properties valued at $10 million or more into a dedicated affordable housing fund.
The relevant transfer tax rates currently range from 5.5% to 6%, with revenue generally flowing into the city's General Fund. Under the proposal, half of the revenue from qualifying transactions would instead be directed to affordable housing programs.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters say the measure would create a dedicated source of funding for affordable housing without raising taxes. They also argue that it would encourage new housing construction by reducing the transfer tax on new construction and fulfill the intent of a 2020 voter-approved policy concerning luxury real estate sales and affordable housing.
Supporters identified in the presentation included the San Francisco Tenants Union, Small Business Forward, United Educators of San Francisco, SEIU 1021, San Franciscans for Social Housing and several housing and anti-displacement organizations.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that directing revenue away from the General Fund would reduce the city's flexibility to pay for other public priorities. They warn that this could affect services such as emergency response, street cleaning and public parks. They also contend that the measure does not require the city to produce a specific number of housing units.
The San Francisco Taxpayers Association and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council were identified as opponents.
Proposition J: Transfer Tax on Certain Foreclosures
Proposition J would eliminate a real property transfer tax exemption for foreclosures involving commercial properties and larger residential buildings containing five or more units.
Under the existing exemption described in the presentation, lenders receiving certain properties through foreclosure pay transfer taxes based on the outstanding debt rather than the property's full value. The measure would require qualifying transfers to be taxed on the property's fair market value.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters say the measure would close a tax loophole used by corporate lenders while preserving the existing exemption for homeowners and smaller residential properties. They estimate that the proposal could generate between $100 million and $150 million annually for the city and help address budget shortfalls without cutting services.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that taxing foreclosures based on full property value could make lending and investment in San Francisco more expensive. They warn that lenders could respond with higher interest rates, larger down-payment requirements or reduced investment in commercial and multifamily properties.
The measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. Supporters identified in the presentation included SEIU 1021, SEIU 2015, Teamsters Local 665 and the San Francisco Democratic Party. The San Francisco Taxpayers Association was identified as an opponent.
Proposition 5: Changes to Recall Elections
State Proposition 5 would change California's recall election process by removing the replacement-candidate question from recall ballots.
Under the proposal, voters would decide whether to remove an elected official. If a majority voted for removal, the vacancy would subsequently be filled through the applicable appointment process or a special election, depending on the office. A recalled official could not be appointed to the same office but could run in a subsequent special election.
The measure is a legislative constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the state Legislature.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters argue that the proposal would preserve voters' ability to remove an elected official while preventing a replacement candidate from winning with only a small share of the vote. They say choosing a replacement should occur through a separate election in which candidates can seek broader voter support.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that voters should retain the ability to remove an official and select a replacement in the same election. They say the existing process can save taxpayers money and that delaying the selection of a replacement could leave voters waiting longer for a change in leadership.
Proposition 39: Government-Issued Identification for Voting
State Proposition 39 would amend the California Constitution to require government-issued identification for voting in person and additional identifying information for voting by mail.
According to the presentation, in-person voters would be required to show government-issued identification. Mail voters would be required to provide the last four digits of a government-issued identification number on their ballot envelopes. The measure would also require the state to maintain voter registration records and verify voters' citizenship status, while making free state voter identification cards available when needed.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters say the proposal would strengthen confidence in elections, improve the accuracy of voter registration records and provide voters with free identification. They argue that clear identification requirements would help ensure that only eligible citizens vote.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that implementing the requirements could cost millions of dollars, expose personal information and increase the risk that ballots would be disqualified because of identification or paperwork problems. They warn that the requirements could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and create barriers for eligible voters.
Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative: Sales Tax for Public Transportation
The regional transit measure would establish a 1% sales tax in San Francisco and a 0.5% sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to support public transportation.
Approximately 95% of the revenue would be allocated among county transportation agencies and transit operators, including BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Francisco Bay Ferry and smaller bus operators.
Funding could support transit operations and infrastructure improvements, including road and rail maintenance related to public transportation.
The measure would also establish oversight and accountability provisions, including an independent oversight committee, a review process for service standards and safety, and third-party efficiency reviews of major transit operators.
Supporters’ arguments: Supporters argue that additional revenue is necessary to prevent service reductions, station closures, higher fares and shorter operating hours. They say the measure would reduce traffic congestion, support the regional economy and preserve affordable transportation for workers, families, seniors, students and people with disabilities.
Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that the sales tax would place a disproportionate burden on lower-income households and increase the combined sales tax rate in some cities to more than 11%. They contend that transit agencies should redirect existing funding, improve efficiency and defer major projects before asking voters to approve additional taxes.
The measure was placed on the ballot through a signature initiative sponsored by the Connect Bay Area Transit Committee.
Voter Information and Resources
Early in-person voting at the Department of Elections in City Hall would begin October 5 and continue through Election Day, November 3. The city would also operate 37 secure ballot drop boxes, with many located near public libraries. Polling places would be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day.
Consult the San Francisco Department of Elections for current information about registration, ballot-return deadlines, voting locations and drop boxes.
0
0
Comments