We want to hear from YOU!

Where do you stand on the ballot propositions in the upcoming November election?

 

*All answers are ANONYMIZED and will be used for informational purposes only*

November 2026 BALLOT MEASURES

If you were voting today, how would you vote on these measures? 

 

Proposition A: Charter Changes Affecting Various City Departments and Commissions

The proposed Charter Amendment (1) modifies boards, commissions, and advisory bodies, (2) changes departmental operations and reporting requirements, (3) alters how the Board of Supervisors must approve settlements or dismissals of legal proceedings recommended by the City Attorney, (4) removes provisions allowing disciplinary action against non-SF Police and Fire striking employees, and (5) makes other edits and changes to the Charter and past voter-approved ordinances. The amendment may reduce required staff time to support boards, commissions, and advisory bodies — freeing staff to work on other government functions. 

The proposed Charter Amendment creates cost savings ranging from $365,000 to $450,000 annually by eliminating the Sanitation and Streets Commission, Public Works Commission, and the Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners Advisory Committee. Two full-time staff members share the personnel requirements of two agencies — the Sanitation and Streets Commissions and Public Works Commissions — and the annual costs for both salaries is $336,000.

Proposition B: Establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and a Public Bank

The proposed Charter Amendment sets up the governance framework for a new MFC and Public Bank. If the amendment is approved, and the Treasurer-Tax Collector determines that adequate funding exists, the MFC and an MFC Oversight Commission may be established. In the event the MFC becomes financially sustainable, which is not guaranteed, the MFC may request state and federal regulatory approval to transition to a Public Bank. 

If the measure passes and the City moves forward with establishing an MFC and subsequently a Public Bank (as authorized by the proposed amendment), the costs would be significant. According to 2023 Reinvestment Working Group estimates, the costs could range from approximately $310 million to $460 million over an eight-year period and be significantly higher or lower, depending on interest rates and changing economic conditions.

Proposition C: Contributions to the Housing Fund

The proposed Charter Amendment is projected to increase the existing Housing Trust Fund (part of the General Fund) spending mandate for affordable housing and would extend the mandate by an additional 15 years — from 2043 to 2058. A General Fund spending mandate is a voter-adopted requirement that directs the government to appropriate funding for specific purposes in future years without identifying a new funding source. For context, voter-adopted spending requirements currently total approximately $2 billion, or 30%, of the approximately $7 billion General Fund sources. Extending the life of the Housing Trust Fund and increasing contributions as projected would reallocate funds that would otherwise be available in the General Fund. 

The proposed Charter Amendment modifies the required funding formula to accelerate the fund’s growth until the annual contribution reaches $125 million, likely in Fiscal Year (FY) 2034–2035, at which point the growth of the fund could slow. Without the amendment, the required funding formula is projected to be approximately $65 million in FY2034–2035. The additional $60 million under the proposed modified funding formula represents the additional money the City would be required to appropriate into the Housing Trust Fund in FY2034–35 and subsequent years. The projected costs above do not assume temporary freezes or reductions in the City’s annual contribution to the fund.

Proposition D: Changes to Ballot Measure Process

The proposed Charter Amendment would (1) require the approval of a majority of the Board of Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot, (2) eliminate the mayor’s ability to directly place an ordinance on the ballot, (3) increase the voter signature threshold for initiatives from 2% to 8% (currently from approximately 10,600 to 42,500 signatures) of the registered voters in San Francisco, (4) allow proponents to withdraw a measure after it qualifies for the ballot, and (5) raise the signature requirement threshold for special elections from 10% of the votes cast for all mayoral candidates in the last general municipal election to 10% of total registered voters.

Proposition E: City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting

The proposed Charter Amendment would (1) give the City Administrator the exclusive authority (with some exceptions) to introduce ordinances that govern City contracting; (2) grant the City Administrator the authority to set Citywide rules for contracting; (3) provide the City Administrator the authority to establish policies, standards, and practices for technology uses across departments; (4) extend the City Administrator’s term from five to 10 years; (5) increase the Board of Supervisors’ approval threshold from $1 million to $4.5 million for revenue-generating contracts and real property lease agreements; and (6) increase the Board of Supervisors’ approval threshold from $10 million to $25 million for expenditure contracts.

Proposition F: Changes to Executive Branch Management

The proposed Charter Amendment would (1) expand the mayor’s authority to hire and remove most department heads; (2) allow most commissioners to be removed “at will” by their appointing authority; (3) authorize the mayor to reorganize departments and adjust reporting relationships within the executive branch, subject to potential rejection by the Board of Supervisors; and (4) allow the use of deputy mayors.

Proposition G: Allowing Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park

Should the proposed Great Highway for All ordinance be approved by the voters, resulting in the roadway being opened to private vehicles during the weekdays, it would increase the cost of government by approximately $9.8 million in one-time capital costs and approximately $500,000 to $1.9 million annually. The cost of the proposed ordinance, should it be approved by the voters, is dependent on decisions that the mayor and Board of Supervisors make through the budget process and operational decisions made by departments, as an ordinance cannot bind future mayors and Boards of Supervisors to provide funding for this or any other purpose. 

The proposed initiative ordinance would amend the San Francisco Park Code to restrict private vehicles on the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard from Friday at 6:00 PM until Monday at 4:00 AM and on holidays.

Proposition H: Parcel Tax to Fund Public Muni Operations

The proposed parcel tax would start at $129 per year for single-family residential parcel building areas up to 3,000 square feet, $249 for multifamily residential parcel building areas up to 5,000 square feet, and $799 for non-residential parcel and mixed-use parcel building areas up to 5,000 square feet. The tax for each property would increase with the square footage of the building area and have a maximum tax amount for non-single family residential parcels. For unimproved parcels with 2,001 or more square feet of land area, the tax would be $392. Seniors 65 years or older, along with some other groups, could apply to SFMTA for an exemption from or reduction of the tax. Total revenue will depend on the number of exemptions requested and granted.

The cost to the government to administer this parcel tax could range from approximately $2 million to $3 million in one-time startup costs and from approximately $4 million to $6 million annually in ongoing costs.

Proposition I: Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax

Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, it would represent a moderate annual decrease of approximately $1 million to the City’s overall revenues starting in FY2027–28. However, the ordinance would also shift $120 million per year of existing revenue from the more flexible General Fund to a special revenue fund dedicated to affordable housing programming and support. Because the ordinance would remove existing revenue from the General Fund, it would increase the City’s projected General Fund deficit by $120 million annually. 

The ordinance would lower the City's General Fund Real Property Transfer Tax rates established by Proposition I in November 2020 and subsequently establish a new Real Property Transfer Tax at near identical rates, which could only be used for specific affordable housing programs. The ordinance would reduce the Real Property Transfer Tax rate on transfers of properties with consideration or value from $10 million to less than $25 million — from 5.5% to 2.75% — and on transfers of properties with consideration or value of $25 million or more — from 6% to 3%. This change would result in a reduction in revenue of $120 million from the City’s General Fund, which the City can spend on any government purpose.

Proposition J: Removal of Foreclosure Exemption for Real Property Transfer Tax

Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, it would increase the City’s Real Property Transfer Tax revenues, although the amount generated each year would be unpredictable and likely to change significantly year to year. The measure could bring an average of $100 million to $150 million annually over the first five years. The total revenue in any given year will be dependent on the number of foreclosures and real estate conditions. It is likely that revenue increases would be highest in the near term, then decline significantly over time. 

Currently, the City partially exempts transfers of real property to a lender by foreclosure or in lieu of foreclosure from its Real Property Transfer Tax, which imposes a tax ranging from 0.5% to 6% of properties’ consideration or value when they are transferred. The proposed ordinance would retain the existing partial exemption for foreclosures of residential and mixed-use properties with fewer than five residential units. However, the proposed ordinance would remove the foreclosure exemption from other property types and subject those transfers to the tax on the fair market value of the properties at the same rates as non-foreclosed properties.