Location: 

For more info, check out:

Prop A- Yes
Prop B- No
Prop C- Yes
Prop D- Yes
Prop E- Yes
Prop F- Yes
Prop G- YES!
Prop H- Yes
Prop I- No
Prop J- YES!
Prop K- Yes
Prop L- NO!
 
Prop A- Yes
Transportation and Road Improvement Bond
 
General Obligation Bond. Anyone who rides Muni can tell you it needs more money, and this is a way to get some. Prop A authorizes city to issue $500 million worth of bonds to address a portion of the city’s $10 billion 10 year capital needs for Muni. 
 
Prop B- No
Adjusting Transportation Funding for Population Growth
 
This Charter Amendment would provide more funding for Muni to increase service reliability and even capital repairs. Sounds good right? The problem is that it accomplishes all this by creating a new budget set-aside without any new revenue source to cover it. It effectively pits transportation against essential social services. As the City Controller notes in the Voter Guide “This proposed Charter amendment is not in compliance with a non-binding, voter approved city policy which states that any new set-aside shall identify adequate new revenue sources to cover its cost and shall expire after ten years.”
 
Prop C- Yes
"Children and Families First" City Funds, Tax and Administration Proposal
 
This is a continuation of the Children’s Fund that has been in place since 1991. The Children’s Fund ensures positive development and education outcomes for our youth. Prop C will extend the Children’s Fund for 25 years and expands services to support youth as they transition into adulthood. Vote Yes for families, for youth, for the future of San Francisco! Want to see what this money has been doing? Click here.
 
Prop D- Yes
Former Retiree Health Benefits for Redevelopment and Successor Agency Employees
 
The State of California shut down all Redevelopment Agencies. This measure counts the years former employees worked at San Francisco’s Redevelopment Agency toward their retirement benefits, as they transition to other employment with the City. 
 
Prop E- Yes
Sugary Drink Tax
 
You HAVE to ask yourself-- why is the American Beverage Association of California spending over $8 million to defeat Prop E? Do we really think they’re spending all that money to protect us and our children and keep us in good health? The savings for our public health system alone should be enough to vote for this.
 
Prop F- Yes
Pier 70 Redevelopment Initiative
 
Prop F would allow the developer of Pier 70 (at the end of 20th/ 22nd Streets) to build 90 foot tall buildings instead of the current 40 foot height limit. The only reason we’re voting on this is because of a measure voters passed in June 2014 requiring all height increases along the waterfront to go to the voters for approval. All of the other stuff mentioned in the Voter Guide and marketing materials about this development including number of housing units, amount of affordable housing, parks, artists community, etc. are all just part of a statement of encouragement. Prop F encourages the developer to do these things, but it’s not binding. So, passing this measure doesn’t guarantee anything except increasing the allowable building height. It’ll be everyone’s job to continue to be engaged and informed and stay active with all the public approval processes going forward.
 
Prop G- YES!
Transfer Tax on Residential Property Re-Sold in Five Years
 
For more information on the grassroots effort to put this on the ballot, check out our multimedia feature "Fighting Inequality at the Ballot Box: Vote Yes on Props G & J"
 
Prop H- Yes
"Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative
 
Prop H would ensure that all athletic fields in Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive remain natural grass, and would prohibit lighting for nighttime sports. See the further analysis under Prop I below.
 
Prop I- No
Parks and Athletic Fields Renovation and Conversion Council-Referred Measure
 
Prop I is farther reaching than Prop H as it would allow installation of artificial turf and lights on any children’s playground, walking path or athletic field (as long as the renovation would double the public’s use and the project receives an environmental certification). 
 
This measure is all about whether there should be a “pay to play” system in our parks. It’s not just about aesthetics (natural vs artificial grass and light pollution at night), or the environment (How toxic is artificial turf to produce and how toxic is it once it’s in place? How much water does natural turf require?), or potential injuries (Do more people get injured playing on artificial turf? Are the injuries more severe?). It’s about who gets to play and how much. These natural turf fields get shut down when it rains. If Prop I passes, the artificial turf will not get shut down, and lights will be installed so there can be more league play. 
 
So, what’s the problem? Prop I’s backers are privatization proponents as is our current Rec and Park Director. So, unfortunately, the choice appears to come down to whether we want to move toward a “pay to play” model for accessing our play fields. If you want to make sure that all San Franciscans can continue to have access to recreational fields in our parks, then the fight doesn’t stop after this election. Residents will have to continue to push the Rec and Park Department not to become exclusive playgrounds for those who can afford to use them, but to remain public resources accessible to everyone.
 
Prop J- YES!
Minimum Wage Increase Referred Measure
 
For more information on the grassroots effort to put this on the ballot, check out our multimedia feature "Fighting Inequality at the Ballot Box: Vote Yes on Props G & J"
 
Prop K- Yes
Additional Affordable Housing Policy
This is a flawed measure but a step in the right direction. It establishes goals for affordable housing which the most important aspect of this proposition. Unfortunately, the goals are vague. We need to get back to the goals for affordable housing set out in the City’s Housing Element, but for now, let’s vote for this as a sign that the voters of San Francisco need as much affordable housing as possible and we encourage the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to work together to make this happen. For a deeper analysis of this issue, please see our news analysis here.
 
Prop L- NO!
"Restore Transportation Balance" Parking Meter and Traffic Laws Initiative
 
Why is the Republican Party funding this measure so heavily? Encouraging more drivers in SF will only lead to more congestion which hurts economic development, slows emergency vehicle response times, and jams up public transportation. It even makes driving worse! Why divert money away from public transportation? We need to support public transportation and putting fees from car usage to use improving public transportation makes sense for everyone. For more check out "Proposition L puts cars over people"!
 
Copyright, People Power Media. We publish all our material under Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives.
 

Updates

If you have an update to share, we would love to post it! We depend on our Action Team to provide us with up-to-date information about the issues that we report on.

You can submit info such as an upcoming community meeting and legislative hearing, or a new change in a law.

Create account

Resources

If you have a resource to share, we would love to post it! We depend on our Action Team to provide us with related information about the issues that we report on.

You can submit info such as information on how to get involved in this issue, reports, or articles by other publications

Create account

Explore