Parcel taxes are a downtown scam.
That’s how San Francisco resident Richard Peterson summed up his frustration with Mayor Daniel Lurie’s latest plan to address the San Francisco Municipal Railway, a.k.a. MUNI’s $320 million deficit: a new citywide parcel tax, which will appear on the November 2026 ballot.
While the Mayor maintains the measure is necessary to preserve transit service and avoid major cuts, critics say it would unfairly burden homeowners and do little to restore public trust in the city’s handling of transit funding.
Photo of SF Mayor Daniel Lurie, by Justin Sullivan
Parcel taxes are a flat-rate charge per property, meaning a one-bedroom home in the Outer Mission pays the same tax as a luxury high-rise downtown. That’s why they’re often labeled “regressive” — they ignore property value, usage, or size.
“If it turns out that it’s just a flat amount, yeah, it does seem unfair,” said a Sunset resident who asked to be called Rob, who also commented for OpGov.ai’s recall follow-up story.
This uneven structure, critics say, allows downtown commercial buildings to get a discount in terms of contribution, while working and middle-class homeowners foot the bill.
But for Rob and others, the bigger issue is trust, specifically regarding how the San Francisco Mass Transit Authority (SFMTA) has managed funds in the past.
“I’m more concerned with the fact that I see nothing but the SFMTA spending wildly on crazy street projects when MUNI is bleeding for money,” Rob said. “They keep complaining that MUNI has no money, but I want to see like a firewall between SFMTA and the MUNI budget itself.”
“If it were guaranteed, it goes only to MUNI, and doesn't go to any of these pet-projects the SFMTA has… I would consider supporting it,” he added. “But if that money could possibly go to SFMTA’s general budget, I definitely would vote no.”
Rob wants clear boundaries and financial transparency. He also expressed frustration over a pattern of unchecked city spending.
Photo of MUNI buses, by Jeremy Menzies & SFMTA
“Just the fact that they've always got their hand out, and we've always passed all these bonds in the past, we've always voted yes — and we’re finally sick of it,” Rob said. “We're saying no. We're not going to keep giving you a blank check. We want some accountability.”
While others may not share Rob’s exact conditions for support, adjacent concerns about fairness and lack of transparency are surfacing across the city.
At the Sept. 9 Board of Supervisors meeting, Richard Peterson highlighted a different, but related, problem: confusion over what a parcel tax even is — and who it impacts most.
“Go around the city and ask any resident if they know what a parcel tax is. Ninety-five percent…do not know,” Peterson said. “And who do they affect most? The people who are homeowners.”
Peterson, who owns two parcels in San Francisco, added pointedly: “I’ll be paying more than the Millennium Tower down there.”
His conditions for support of the measure relate to amendments based on square-footage or units, and a comprehensive examination of SF’s Parcel Database.
Photo of Mr. Richard Peterson, Board of Supervisors Meeting
Mr. Peterson told OpGov.ai that he “supports the Mayor in general,” but is opposed to the imposition of the new parcel tax unless it undergoes these changes.
To Rob, the issue isn’t just about fairness; it’s about priorities.
“I don’t wanna see MUNI cuts happen anymore, but I wanna make sure they’re doing everything else, that everything else is tried before they ask us for more money,” Rob said. “And I don’t always feel like they do that.”
Rob pointed to examples of what he calls poor fiscal judgment.
“They had a big meeting where they were trying to brainstorm how to save money for MUNI, and they were thinking of doing stupid things like taxing people that have driveways,” Rob said.
But Rob says the war on cars has unintended consequences and direct financial impact.
“When you take out parking spaces…you also take away all the revenue that the parking meters generate, not to mention the revenue from people who overstay their parking and get a ticket,” Rob added, noting it all goes towards MUNI directly.
“They’re shooting themselves in the foot — and then suddenly saying, ‘Oh, but we need more money, so cough it up,’” Rob said. “It’s a little offensive at some point.”
The mayor’s parcel tax proposal was evaluated in the MUNI Funding Working Group report, where it was estimated to raise $85 million annually. That wouldn’t cover the full deficit but could account for a large portion over time.
In lieu of the major service cuts that MUNI would be subject to if the deficit goes unmitigated, the ends could defensibly justify the means. A dramatic deficit requires equally dramatic action.
However, other options in the same report, such as Sunday parking meter enforcement, fare enforcement, and higher ride-share fees, were ranked more effective and less regressive. And, there methods are less inequitable for homeowners.
So why pursue the parcel tax first?
Ultimately, critics like Rob and Peterson aren’t categorically opposed to a parcel tax, but they want it to be equitable, transparent, and targeted. They also want a seat at the table. Peterson says: “The homeowners were not invited to Mayor Lurie’s special committee.”
If the city wants more public money, Rob argues, it needs to start with three things: guarantee funds go only to MUNI; stop bleeding revenue by removing parking meters and garages; and prove that everything else has been tried first.
“We’re not going to keep giving you a blank check,” Rob said.
Mayor Lurie and the Board of Supervisors declined to comment. This article will be updated if that changes.
Comments