Each election, San Franciscans in the ballot booth are faced with a lengthy list of some seriously confusing propositions. Some seem written to purposely confuse us. Some contain hidden language– we’re looking at you, Prop. I. So, to help you get through the technicalities and jargon, here’s a real-language guide to what the propositions mean. Note: These aren’t endorsements, just explanations, listed with the most pressing and contentious ballot items at the top.
Prop. G: Anti-Speculation Tax
This is the hot-button election issue this year given the city’s gentrification and housing wars. Aimed at discouraging people from flipping buildings for a profit, sometimes resulting in Ellis Act evictions, Prop. G adds an extra property tax (14 to 24 percent) to multiunit buildings that are sold within five years of being purchased. About half of Ellis Act evictions, between 2009 and 2013, occurred within less than a year of ownership; 78 percent within five years. One of the biggest supporters? Harvey Milk. An antispeculation tax was one of the last pieces of legislation he pushed for before his assassination. Prop. G is endorsed by Senator Mark Leno, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, and Supervisors David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, and John Avalos.
Prop. G doesn’t apply to single-family homes, condos, or any owner-occupied home. The main point of contention, though, are single-family homes with in-law units, which could be seen as multiunit buildings. According to opponents, Prop. G will tax homes with in-laws. Supporters say the tax does not apply to these types of houses as long as they're a homeowner's principle residence. There are tons of other exceptions. Opponents include real estate associations and Supervisor Scott Wiener. They argue that Prop. G will actually increase housing costs since people will flip those buildings anyway, pay the tax, and pass the cost onto renters.
Prop. L: The Pro-Car Initiative
You know what’s ruining San Francisco? According to tech billionaire Sean Parker, it’s bike lanes, which he claims have eliminated thousands of parking spaces. Parker is one of the most notable financial backers of Prop. L, which would use money meant for public transit and pedestrian infrastructure to fund parking garages and make SF more car-friendly. Prop. L would also freeze parking prices and parking tickets, and ban new meters, and make sure Sundays remain meter-free, which proponents say could help parking suck less in SF. Other supporters of Prop. L include Jason P. Clark (VP of the Log Cabin Republicans of SF), the SF Police Officers Association, and several neighborhood merchants associations. No currently elected officials have come out publically in support of Prop. L.
Opponents say Prop. L will encourage more driving, which means more gridlock and more people looking for parking. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition is against Prop. L, which it says will decrease funding for bike projects and make the streets less safe for cyclists. Others against Prop. L include the San Francisco Democratic Party, the San the SF Bay Area Chapter of the Sierra Club, and a list of elected officials.
Prop. H: Golden Gate Park’s Turf Wars
Yep, another fight over soccer fields. The debate here is whether to give the Golden Gate Parks’ Beach Chalet fields a makeover complete with artificial turf and nighttime lighting or to leave them au natural. Supporters, who want to keep the grass, point to environmental issues – they say the fake grass is toxic and the 150,000 watts of lighting every day will be an energy waste. Notable endorsements for Prop. H include Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez, the Sierra Club, and the Golden Gate Audubon Society. Opponents say artificial turf is more sports-friendly and requires lower maintenance, and that the field makeover will allow more kids to play on safer fields.
Careful: Voting is super tricky here. Prop. H is closely tied to Prop. I (see below). If you want to keep the fields as natural grass, you have to vote Yes on H andalso No on I. If Prop. I passes, it voids H, regardless of how many people vote on H. (Confusing, right?)
Prop. I: End Park Debates
If you don’t really mind artificial turf and you just want people to stop arguing over parks already (How many discussions did we have to have over Dolores Park?) vote Yes on Prop. I. If it passes, it negates Prop. H, even if H gets enough votes. But, less discussed is that Prop. I will make it harder down the road to stop renovation projects of playgrounds, athletic fields, and walking trails, if they've already gone through the environmental impact report approval and will double the public usage.* Notable supporters of Prop. I include Mayor Ed Lee and Supervisors David Chiu, London Breed, Malia Cohen, and Eric Mar.
*Correction: An earlier version overstated the scope of Prop. I.
Prop. E: Soda Tax
This is a classic sin tax, much like that on cigarettes, which would add a two-cent tax per ounce on sugary drinks, or 24 cents on a can of soda. Unlike the Soda Tax in Berkeley, Prop. E would specifically use that money for programs that promote nutrition, physical activity, and health in places like public schools and parks. Endorsements include health officials and a wide-ranging list of elected politicians like Mark Leno, George Gascon, and Scott Wiener. “Big Soda,” worried about the national implications of the law, has spent $7.7 million trying to defeat the proposition. Libertarians take issue (hands off my sweet tooth!), and other opponents argue it could disproportionately hurt low-income consumers (who supposedly drink more soda) and small businesses like bodegas that will end up charging more.
Prop. F: Pier 70 Redevelopment
Even if you’re against any more big development projects in the city, it’s good to look twice at Prop. F. Voting Yes on Prop. F means moving forward with a mixed-use project that will turn 28 acres of city-owned property into a combination of commercial space; artist studios; some 2,000 housing units, including 600 affordable ones; as well as nine acres of parks, including public access to the waterfront. The development has undergone a ton of community reviews, getting input and approval from neighborhood associations, housing advocates, and the Sierra Club. The developers have even promised that the artist community already there can stick around. This one’s on the ballot because anything on the waterfront that exceeds certain height limits needs voter approval.
Prop. K: Additional Affordable Housing
Prop. K is a nonbinding agreement – that is, a symbolic statement – that the city will add 30,000 new housing units by 2020. A third of those will be “affordable” for “working class” and 17 percent for “middle-income earners.” (But it doesn’t detail what those words mean in dollar amounts.) Prop. K, initially drafted by Supervisor Jane Kim and supported by the city’s affordable housing movement, specifies that starting in 2015, the city will be required to regularly review how much affordable housing we have, but it doesn’t state what will be done with that information. This prop doesn’t have real teeth, but supporters say it’s a step in the right direction. Opponents, including Terence Faulkner of the Golden Gate Taxpayers Association, say more housing is not the answer to the exploding housing crisis.
Prop. J: Minimum Wage Increase
The Bay Area is leading the way nationally with increasing the minimum wage, which makes sense given that it’s also one of the most expensive places to live. Prop. J would increase the minimum wage gradually, from $10.74 an hour ($22,339 annually if working full time) to $12.25 ($25,480) next May. Then, gradually it’ll build up to $15 an hour by July 2018. Opponents say the wage hike could hurt small businesses and possibly cause layoffs. The costs would be passed on to the consumers. Restaurants, for example, might have to raise menu prices. But there is no active campaign against the proposition. Proponents point out that San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live, with an increasing gap between rich and poor, and paying rent, let alone supporting a family, is nearly impossible on the current minimum wage.
Prop. A: More Money for Muni, Sidewalks, and Bike Lanes
Prop. A, backed by the Board of Supervisors, gives the go-ahead for the city to borrow $500 million for its highest-priority public transit and road improvements. Some of the projects include better Muni and BART access for people with disabilities, more bike lanes and bike parking, better Muni maintenance, and safer sidewalks. This comes just as Muni lost a major revenue stream from free Sunday meters. It’s pretty straightforward: No one is opposing it.
Prop. B: Link SFMTA Budget to Population Growth
Right now the city’s budget for Muni, roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes is based on how much money the city has, not on the city’s population. Prop. B would make the city increase the SFMTA budget to correspond to how many people are here, both during the day and night. More users, mo’ money. This is a stopgap measure to provide SFMTA funding while the supervisors and the mayor debate whether or not to increase the vehicle licensing fees, an issue that will be on the 2016 ballot.
Prop. C: Use Property Taxes for Programs for Kids
This one extends a system, set up in 1991, which uses property tax money for things like public schools, after-school programs, health care for kids, as well as programs for people 18 to 24, such as high school dropouts and people leaving foster care. Prop. C extends the old system for another 25 years and pumps up the amount from three to four cents per $100 of property taxes. On top of that, it promises that all of our public schools will have PE, art, and a librarian. Right now, no one is officially opposing it.
Prop. D: Retiree Health Benefits
The people at the city’s Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency, which promotes economic revitalization and affordable housing, don’t get the same retiree health benefits as other city workers due to a weird loophole. Back when SF passed the rule that city workers hired pre-2009 get retiree and health benefits after working for five years, the RASA was a state agency not a city one. Prop. D applies to only about 50 workers, so there is no major opposition.
[Image via Thinkstock]