Following yet another year of brutal heatwaves and devastating wildfires, Californians have the chance to tell elected officials they support urgent climate action by voting for a $10 billion climate resilience bond on the November ballot.

During an unprecedented budget surplus two years ago, California earmarked $54 billion to forge “an oil-free future” and protect residents from the extreme effects of climate change. That surplus morphed into a multibillion-dollar deficit within a year, after rosy projections of rising revenues from income taxes failed to materialize, forcing Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers to cut and defer billions from their ambitious climate spending plans.

California’s budget problems will likely continue, analysts say, as will the climate change-fueled disasters that have battered the state. To provide a stable source of funding for urgently needed climate action, legislators passed a bill in July that seeks voters’ approval to authorize the state to borrow $10 billion to underwrite climate resiliency projects. Newsom signed it the same day. 

Now scientists, policymakers, climate experts and environmental justice advocates are among those urging voters to support the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024, on the ballot as Proposition 4. 

“Multiple excellent studies show that paying now will save lives and save dollars,” said Ellie Cohen, CEO of The Climate Center, a nonprofit dedicated to reducing climate pollution, and a member of the Yes on 4 campaign. “Even a short-term delay in adopting strong climate policies dramatically increases the cost of decarbonization and risks irreversible ecological impacts,” she said.

A warmer climate is likely to permanently alter ecosystems, trigger a wave of species extinctions and reduce crop yields through more frequent heat waves and drier soil, a 2021 report by the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation Policy & Technology warned. 

Failing to prepare for catastrophic wildfires, drought, extreme heat and other extreme events could cost the state an estimated $113 billion in damages a year by 2050, according to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Most of the costs come from lives lost, impacts from drought and damage to coastal properties and inland regions hit by the type of weeks-long flooding that killed thousands and bankrupted the state during the 1861-1862 megaflood. 

Yet $113 billion a year is likely an underestimate. The assessment did not account for the costs of several other climate-related disasters, including health harms and property damage from wildfires, illness and death from extreme heat and impacts of drought on water quality, wildlife and ecosystems. Damages from the calamitous 2018 wildfires cost nearly $150 billion, a peer-reviewed study found. 

Investing in resilience pays

Responding to climate disasters costs exponentially more than investing in resilience, experts say. Every dollar spent on climate preparedness saves $6 on disaster relief, according to Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates. That means investing $10 billion in climate resiliency now could avoid a $60 billion cleanup and recovery bill down the road.

If voters approve Prop. 4, state officials will immediately start funding projects to improve access to safe drinking water, reduce risks from wildfire and drought, make food systems more resilient, restore habitats and protect communities, farmland and ecosystems from climate risks. 

“Bond funds are an appropriate and very effective way to fund many of the climate change-adaptation actions that many cities and counties are planning right now but don’t have local revenue sources to support,” said Laura Engeman, an environmental scientist at the University of California, San Diego. “A lot needs to be done around coastal resilience, in terms of environmental restoration as well as the connection between restoration and public infrastructure. These bonds provide a way to plan a lot of that.”

For example, many jurisdictions are looking at restoring sand dunes, wetlands and other ecosystems to protect infrastructure like roads and water systems, Engeman said.

“We saw a lot of degradation and erosion at our beaches over these last two years, which were big storm years,” she said. “You’re seeing a number of different cities right now that are looking at immediate needs for repair, recovery and building what we call ‘a coastal resilience buffer’ into the beach and shoreline landscape to buy a little bit of time to figure out how to actually adapt.”

Other projects include wetlands restoration, which involves upgrading bridges to expand the space for water to move and drain during floods, and retooling watersheds that channel polluted floodwaters into public spaces. “The bond is a good use of public dollars because there are a lot of benefits to the broader community,” Engeman said. “We’re saving money on the back end by spending money up front.”

Prop. 4 would support loans and grants to local governments, Native American tribes, nonprofit organizations and businesses to reduce the risks and impacts of a warming world. 

The largest share would go to safeguarding drinking water and dwindling groundwater supplies, and protecting rivers and streams from toxic pollution ($3.8 billion), followed by investments in wildfire prevention and extreme heat mitigation ($1.95 billion), protection of natural lands, parks and wildlife ($1.9 billion), protection of coastal lands, bays and oceans ($1.2 billion), transitioning to clean energy ($850 million) and supporting climate-smart agriculture ($300 million). 

Advancing climate justice 

Prop. 4 ensures that at least 40 percent of funds go to projects that benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, in keeping with the Biden administration’s Justice40 Initiative. 

“A significant part of this bond prioritizes the frontline communities that bear the brunt of climate change impacts and impacts from the fossil fuel industry,” said The Climate Center’s Cohen.

California officials released an updated plan to protect communities from extreme heat in 2022, noting that “every corner” of the state will be affected by higher average temperatures and more frequent and severe heat waves. Farmworkers are increasingly vulnerable to heat-related illness and death, particularly in regions with chronically bad air, as Inside Climate News reported last year. Prop. 4 would allocate $450 million to help primarily disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations adapt to extreme heat.

Access to safe drinking water has been a human right in the Golden State since 2012, yet close to 400 public water systems fail to meet drinking water standards. Nearly a million residents, primarily in low-income communities and communities of color, lack clean water in their homes, according to the state water board. Another 1.5 million people rely on water systems at risk of failing. 

The bond earmarks $610 million to provide safe, affordable, reliable sources of drinking water, including to tribal communities, and to develop drought-contingency plans and monitor for contaminants like PFAS “forever chemicals,” which have been detected in supplies serving more than 25 million people, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council recently reported.

Some of California’s most endangered resources would also benefit. The bond allocates $170 million to improving air quality, public health and habitat around the beleaguered Salton Sea, which supports more than 120,000 migrating shorebirds, several species of concern and hundreds of other bird species southeast of Palm Springs. Another $50 million would go to restoring the state’s critically endangered salmon populations.

The proposition has broad support from environmental groups, environmental justice advocates, labor unions, water agencies and renewable energy companies. Opposition includes the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which called it “reckless to use borrowed money” and Republican legislators led by the minority leader of the state Senate, Brian Jones (R-San Diego), who believes bond debt will only worsen California’s budget crisis. 

Repaying the amount borrowed with interest is likely to cost taxpayers $400 million a year over 40 years, a state legislative analyst said, ultimately costing $16 billion.

It’s not certain voters will accept more debt. Despite California’s liberal reputation, voters tend to be conservative when it comes to bond measures, survey expert Mark Baldassare of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California recently reported. Even so, 65 percent of likely voters said they would vote yes on Prop. 4 in a survey PPIC released this week.

The Climate Center’s Cohen acknowledged that many don’t like paying more to support government action. “But the bottom line is, our fossil fuel economy has resulted in a climate crisis that I liken to a runaway train,” she said. “We’re all standing on the track, it’s accelerating towards us and we are not doing enough to slow it down.”

She sees Prop. 4 as just one step in the right direction to help California weather the challenges ahead. “The climate crisis is escalating every day, and we have to start taking bold actions,” Cohen said. “And that means bold investments to make a difference for our health and well being and the future of our children.”

The post California Ballot Asks Voters to Invest in Climate Solutions appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

San Francisco has seen a 15% reduction in drug overdose deaths this year with 462 people dying in the first eight months of 2024. That is still an “alarmingly high” mortality rate and it may increase again, said Dr. Grant Colfax, the city Department of Public Health director.

Nevertheless, when asked at an overdose awareness day event in August what happened to the department’s plan to open safe consumption sites, Colfax said: “What our focus is right now is continuing to make sure that people have access to treatment.”  That’s despite research showing such facilities — also known as overdose prevention centers — save lives, reduce drug use in public, increase access to life-saving treatment and care and reduce public spending on emergency services.

Instead, the Department of Public Health is relying on a new 24-hour-a-day outreach initiative that provides unhoused drug users with the opioid dependency medication buprenorphine.

This “Civic” episode goes inside an overdose prevention center run by OnPoint NYC to hear from staffers and people who have received help with treatment for substance use disorders and other challenges associated with addiction.

Meanwhile, more cities and states are embracing overdose prevention centers. Last February, the Providence City Council in Rhode Island approved a state-sanctioned overdose prevention center. In April, Minneapolis nonprofit Minnesota Overdose Awareness opened a safe injection site thanks to legislation signed in 2023 by Gov. Tim Walz, presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ running mate. And in June, the Vermont Legislature overrode the governor’s veto of a bill to sanction an overdose prevention center in Burlington, an addiction hot spot.

But San Francisco appears to have abandoned the strategy, despite previously having the support of Mayor London Breed and city supervisors. Talk of overdose prevention centers has not come up in any meaningful way during election campaigning. And elected officials did not reply to calls and emails in August requesting an update.

At a mayoral candidate debate in June, Breed suggested city attorneys could face disbarment for enabling the launch of an overdose prevention center because of prohibitions under state law. But in New York City, the nonprofit organization OnPoint NYC worked with the city to skirt legal liability and opened two centers in November 2021. Their efforts have cleaned up surrounding neighborhoods and reversed more than 1,500 overdoses in less than three years with no deaths, according to OnPoint.

[Read and listen to our previous reporting on San Francisco’s overdose crisis and ongoing prevention efforts.]

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April found that the centers kept people alive and kept them from consuming drugs in public. And a 2022 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the centers did not increase crimes recorded by police or calls for emergency services in the surrounding neighborhoods.

OnPoint’s efforts are also improving lives, said Sam Rivera, the organization’s director.

“The anecdotal things around reunification with children and reunification with families and becoming employable again — these are things that would never have happened for these folks,” Rivera said.

The success is in large part due to OnPoint’s dedication to treating each client with dignity, said Susan Spratt, OnPoint’s associate director of clinical services.

“We’re seeing people who are often not seen, they’re stepped over, literally, in the streets,” Spratt said. “This has been said to me more than once, to me and to multiple staff members in our clinic: ‘I feel like you’re really listening to me. I haven’t been listened to in a long time. So, thank you.’”

The post Overdose Prevention Centers — Nonstarter in SF, Despite Success in NYC appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

This is a nonpartisan analysis of the local measures on the San Francisco ballot for the Nov. 5, 2024, election.

If you appreciate our work, consider becoming a monthly member. To receive updates about this guide and other reporting from the San Francisco Public Press, sign up for our newsletter.

Voter Guide Index

Prop A | Prop B | Prop C | Prop D | Prop E | Prop F | Prop G | Prop H | Prop I | Prop J | Prop K | Prop L | Prop M | Prop N | Prop O

Proposition A — Bonds to Improve SF Schools

Proposition A would let the San Francisco Unified School District borrow up to $790 million to upgrade, repair and retrofit its campuses and other properties, and to build a facility that would produce high-quality meals for students.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition B — Bonds to Enhance Health Care Facilities and Public Spaces

Proposition B would let San Francisco borrow up to $390 million to carry out infrastructure and other projects, like upgrading health care facilities, creating homeless shelter, repaving roads and renovating Harvey Milk Plaza, the Castro neighborhood spot honoring the city’s first openly gay supervisor.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition C — New Inspector General Would Fight Local Corruption

In the wake of years of FBI probes and ongoing scandals, Proposition C aims to fight corruption in San Francisco by creating a local inspector general position for investigating government fraud, waste and abuse of city resources.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition D — Eliminate City Commissions, Empower Mayor

Proposition D would halve the number of City Hall commissions and end their oversight of government departments. The mayor would gain greater power to appoint commissions and departments. 

Proposition D would dramatically alter governance in San Francisco. It is in direct opposition with Proposition E.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition E — Create Task Force to Consider Culling Commissions

Proposition E would create a task force to assess San Francisco’s many commissions and public bodies and recommend whether any should be altered or eliminated to improve local governance.

Proposition E is in direct opposition with Proposition D, which would automatically schedule half the city’s commissions for elimination.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition F — Delay Officer Retirement to Bolster Police Staffing

Proposition F aims to bolster police staffing by giving retirement-eligible officers a financial incentive to continue working: They could begin drawing pensions early, alongside their salaries, for up to five years.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition G — Fund Housing for Extremely Low-Income Tenants

Proposition G would reduce rents for hundreds of housing units in San Francisco so that extremely low-income seniors, families and people with disabilities could afford them.

Today, even San Francisco’s so-called affordable housing is often out of reach for those tenants.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition H — Enable Earlier Retirement for Firefighters

Proposition H would lower the age by which members of the San Francisco Fire Department could qualify for their maximum retirement packages, from 58 to 55, in an effort to encourage them to protect their health by leaving the work sooner.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition I — Give Nurses and 911 Operators Better Pension Plans

Proposition I would improve retirement packages for 911 call dispatchers, as well as nurses who transitioned from temporary to full-time staff positions, in an effort to attract more people to those city jobs.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition J — Increase Oversight of City Funding for Children and Youth Programs

Proposition J would create an oversight body to evaluate local government expenditures on programs benefiting children and youths.

The measure would also redirect many tens of millions of dollars annually to those programs, potentially drawing down other parts of City Hall’s budget.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition K — Authorize Great Highway to Become Car-Free, Possibly a Park

Proposition K would start a process that could, about a year later, permanently close a large section of San Francisco’s Great Highway to car traffic so that the city could later turn it into a park. The measure would not fund the design or creation of the park.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition L — Tax Ride-Hailing and Autonomous Vehicle Companies to Fund Public Transit

Proposition L would tax ride-hail companies, including those that operate self-driving cars, and devote the tax revenue to improving San Francisco’s public transit.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition M — Overhaul SF Business Tax System

Proposition M would fundamentally change how the city taxes businesses, in order to better align with post-pandemic work norms and strengthen the government’s long-term financial footing.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition N — Create Fund to Pay Off First Responders’ Student Loans

Proposition N could help pay off first responders’ student loans with the goal of attracting new hires amid staffing shortages.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

Proposition O — Protect Access to Reproductive Care

Proposition O would strengthen access to abortion and reproductive care in San Francisco and protect the privacy of patients and health care providers.

Read the full analysis

Go back to the top

The post November 2024 SF Voter Guide appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition O would strengthen access to abortion and reproductive care in San Francisco and protect the privacy of patients and health care providers.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

States across the country continue to ban abortions, limit reproductive health care and try to control and punish women for the choices they make about their bodies. Proposition O’s proponents say it would strengthen local health services in San Francisco, and the privacy of the women seeking them, even if they came from out of state.

Mayor London Breed, who co-authored Proposition O with San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act organizers, stood alongside allies at Planned Parenthood’s San Francisco facility at a June news conference to announce the measure.

Kimberly Ellis, director of the city’s Department on the Status of Women, said the measure was an example of “proactively contingency planning,” given the prospect of a Donald Trump and J.D. Vance administration. Both politicians have voiced support for a national abortion ban.

“We are battening down the hatches,” Ellis said. “Because if there’s one thing we have learned from the pandemic, and from the fall of Roe v. Wade, it is that this is not a drill.”

Among the measure’s endorsers are California Sen. Scott Weiner, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, and U.S. representatives Nancy Pelosi and Kevin Mullin.

What it would do

Proposition O would create the Reproductive Freedom Fund to pay for reproductive care in case the federal government rescinded Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which provides those services at reduced or no cost to low-income people.

The San Francisco Department of Public Health would create a website listing facilities that offer full reproductive health care. The list would include two crisis pregnancy centers and describe them as offering “limited services.”

Crisis pregnancy centers, run by anti-abortion activists, aim to dissuade women from having abortions. The majority are not staffed by licensed medical professionals, as KQED reported in Napa. Some pretend to offer full reproductive health care services to deceive women into going through with unwanted pregnancies, according to the investigative podcast “Reveal.” The dishonesty of such facilities spurred California Attorney General Rob Bonta to issue a consumer alert about them in 2022.

In an attempt to address this pattern of deceptiveness, Proposition O would authorize the city’s health department to post signs outside two local centers stating that they do not provide abortions or emergency contraception, and describing where to get those services.

Proposition O would forbid crisis pregnancy centers, which often are not bound by patient privacy laws, from sharing individual and health provider information with states that have outlawed abortions, as several have attempted to prosecute people for terminating pregnancies.

The measure would permit reproductive health clinics to expand operations above ground floors in nonresidential districts, and to corner lots in residential areas.

Opposition

In the official argument against Proposition O, Melanie Salazar, executive director of nonprofit Pro-Life San Francisco, criticized governments for “increasingly castigating” what she called pregnancy resource centers — more commonly called crisis pregnancy centers — rather than “citing negative reviews or violations of the law” at specific locations. Planned Parenthood spokesperson Christian Garcia told the San Francisco Standard that he was unaware of instances when women had entered pregnancy centers in San Francisco and been misled into thinking they were accessing abortion services.

However, at the June news conference, Breed called out the two local centers for being “very misleading,” adding that women who have entered seeking information were told “you will go to hell.”

Salazar, who called Proposition O “abortion extremism,” said the measure’s rules and Breed’s disparaging comments would discourage people from “receiving quality care” at pregnancy resource centers.

Salazar also criticized the measure for requiring signage only outside pregnancy resource centers, referring people to abortion clinics — without requiring similar signage outside clinics, referring people to the centers.

The Archdiocese of San Francisco, which oversees Roman Catholic Church activities in the city, also opposes the measure, and created a page on its website urging people to vote against it. Their opposition may surprise no one after San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone denounced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in May for “the grave evil she is perpetrating” by supporting abortion rights, declaring that Pelosi must be denied Holy Communion.

Cost

If passed, Proposition O would likely result in a one-time cost to the city of about $4,000 to install signs outside two pregnancy centers, with annual maintenance costs up to $8,000, according to an analysis by the city controller.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on O” campaign committee had raised $69,691, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. 

No group opposing Proposition O had reported fundraising activity to the city.

History and context

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court case that recognized abortion as a constitutional right. Since then, more than two-dozen states have banned or severely restricted abortions and women’s reproductive health care.

California voters, on the other hand, enshrined the right to abortion in the state’s constitution following the court’s ruling.

Dr. Nicole Barnett, the chief operating officer of Planned Parenthood Northern California, told the San Francisco Examiner that San Francisco is an increasingly popular destination for women seeking care they can no longer get in their home states, with 1,410 abortions performed between July 2022 and June 2023.

Nearly 1 in 5 patients across the country traveled out of state for abortion services in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a national nonprofit that supports abortion rights. California has seen abortions increase an estimated 17% since 2020.

If passed, Proposition O could be vulnerable to legal challenges, the San Francisco Standard reported. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar California law, which required crisis pregnancy centers to post information about available abortion and contraceptive services and to disclose whether their clinics had medical licenses. The court found that the law violated the centers’ First Amendment rights to free speech.

Proposition O differs from the state law in that it would direct City Hall workers, rather than the clinics, to post the signs.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition O requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition O — Protect Access to Reproductive Care appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition M would fundamentally change how the city taxes businesses, in order to better align with post-pandemic work norms and strengthen the government’s long-term financial footing. 

The measure would exempt more small businesses from taxes and fees, while reducing taxes on some of the city’s largest companies. 

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

What it would do

Proposition M would shift how San Francisco calculates its gross receipts tax paid by businesses. If it passes, San Francisco will rely less on payroll expenses for staff working here, and more on revenue that firms earn within the city. The changes would apply indefinitely, unless repealed.

The measure could affect companies’ behaviors in ways that would help San Francisco’s economy:

1. Their staff might return to the office and work remotely less frequently, because companies would face a lower tax burden for having employees work in San Francisco.
2. Companies might be less likely to leave San Francisco. That’s because, even if they moved their headquarters out of the city, their sales here would still get taxed.

The measure would tend to raise taxes on businesses that had large revenues and small staffs, and that could not easily move operations. One likely example is Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the region’s utility. Industries to see their gross receipts taxes rise would include biotechnology, with an 18% increase; retail trade, at 16%; and construction, at 7%.

Some notable industries would see major savings, such as the category that includes arts, entertainment and recreation businesses, at an 80% average tax reduction; restaurants, bars and other food service businesses would get a 45% reduction; and educational and health care services would see taxes fall by 30%. 

The measure would also more than double the threshold at which companies become subject to the gross receipts tax, from $2.25 million in annual revenue to $5 million. That would eliminate gross receipts taxes for more than 2,700 small businesses.

Proposition M would stall a scheduled tax hike on all businesses — first delayed with the onset of the pandemic and now slated for 2025 — until 2027.

And Proposition M would simplify the tax system, consolidating the city’s 14 business categories into seven, making it easier for companies to pay their taxes. It could also prevent costly legal battles, said a city official who requested anonymity because their department has not endorsed the proposition. In light of today’s complicated tax system, companies are disputing their business categories in court, the source said. 

In addition the measure would increase the rate for the homelessness gross receipts tax, which generates government revenue for housing and services for unhoused people, and apply it to more businesses. Meanwhile, the city would stop charging businesses certain fees, including for occupying sidewalks with tables and chairs.

Support

Proposition M would give critical tax relief to small businesses that are still struggling to recover from the pandemic, said Laurie Thomas, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, in the official proponent argument for the measure. The tax break could pull some back from the brink of closure, said proponents in the official paid argument for the measure. 

Delaying the 2025 tax hike could also help many neighborhood businesses survive, proponents said. 

The measure would especially help the restaurant industry. Nearly 90% of restaurants, virtually all of them small businesses, would be exempt from the rejiggered tax. Big chain restaurants would likely receive tax increases, Thomas said. 

Many of the city’s tech giants would benefit from Proposition M’s tax breaks, helping the whole business ecosystem, Thomas said. If the lower taxes enticed them to stay in San Francisco, their workers would patronize local restaurants and retailers, possibly helping revive downtown, she said. 

And by exempting businesses from arcane permitting and licensing fees, the measure could save businesses citywide $10 million. Going forward, the city would cover those fees with other revenue sources. That would be almost as big a boon for small businesses as the gross receipts tax exemption, Thomas said. 

Proposition M’s supporters include Mayor London Breed and a majority of the Board of Supervisors, including Aaron Peskin, board president and a mayoral candidate running to unseat Breed. It also has the backing of Assessor-Recorder Joaquín Torres, Masood Samereie of the Council of District Merchants Associations, Rodney Fong of the Chamber of Commerce, Alex Bastian of the Hotel Council, Larry Mazzola Jr. of the Building and Construction Trades Council and Mary Jung of the San Francisco Democratic Party. 

Opposition

Proposition M’s new tax system is forecast to generate more revenue than today’s system through “steep tax hikes” that could “drastically alter the financial future of major companies,” said Larry Marso, a local technology executive and attorney, in the official opposition argument. 

The measure would hurt certain industries, with some larger mid-sized businesses taking a massive hit, Marso said. 

Those companies may still be financially recovering from the pandemic, he said, adding that tax hikes could further hurt them and push them to leave the city, which would harm the local economy. 

Cost

If passed, Proposition M would first lose money for the city, and then earn it back and sustain increased tax revenues. For the first three fiscal years, the measure would reduce revenues by about $40 million annually, according to an analysis by City Controller Greg Wagner. Scheduled rate increases would thereafter earn the city roughly an additional $50 million each year, nullifying the initial deficit by Fiscal Year 2029-2030. 

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on M” campaign committee had raised about $1.5 million, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. Major contributions include $500,000 from Google, $250,000 from Airbnb and $245,000 from the Chamber of Commerce.

No group opposing Proposition M had reported fundraising activity to the city.

History and context

Because San Francisco taxes companies at higher rates the more they spend on payroll, the city leans heavily on a handful of businesses for tax revenue. San Francisco’s five largest companies pay nearly a quarter of its total tax haul, according to a 2023 report by the controller’s office. That’s risky, because the city would lose significant revenue if any of those businesses were to leave. 

Votes needed to pass

Proposition M requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass. 

The measure includes a poison pill: Depending on the vote count, it could nullify Proposition L, which would levy a gross receipts tax on ride-hailing and autonomous vehicle companies to fund public transit.

In the event that voters passed both measures:

• If Proposition M got more “yes” votes, only Proposition M would be implemented.
• If Proposition L got more “yes” votes, both measures would be implemented.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition M — Overhaul SF Business Tax System appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition N could help pay off first responders’ student loans with the goal of attracting new hires amid staffing shortages.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

Proponents say the measure would help alleviate staffing crises across multiple departments. They also say it would act as an “innovative incentive” to attract highly skilled talent in a competitive market. 

“Our public safety and health care ecosystem is severely strained right now, and we need to create incentives to prevent a catastrophic breaking point and ensure that we can attract and retain excellent, qualified candidates to serve our city’s public safety ecosystem,” said Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, who co-drafted the measure and is running for mayor, at a July 22 Rules Committee meeting. “These are the people we count on every single day, and we must prioritize proper staffing levels.”

Supervisors Shamann Walton, Matt Dorsey, Joel Engardio and Connie Chan also support the measure, as do Service Employees International Union Local 1021, the San Francisco Police Officers Association, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and San Francisco Firefighters Local 798. 

Opposition

Larry Marso, the registered opponent of this measure as well as of propositions C, E, G and M, argued in his official opposition statement that Proposition N fails to address underlying issues that lead to student loan debt among first responders, such as rising education costs and inadequate compensation. He also said the measure could encourage early retirement, as workers may be more inclined to leave once their loans are forgiven.

What it would do

Proposition N would create a fund to help police officers, firefighters, paramedics, sheriffs, nurses and 911 dispatchers employed by the city pay off their student loan debts. Money from the fund could also pay for job-related educational and training expenses that today aren’t eligible for reimbursement.

To qualify, first responders would need to be hired in 2025 or beyond, and work for the city for at least three consecutive years. The city would pay off at most $25,000 per person. Proposition N does not have a funding mechanism. The mayor and Board of Supervisors could later decide to put money into the fund, which could also receive donations from private philanthropy.

Regarding the lack of funding, Safaí said that asking for taxes in an economy still struggling to recover would be a hard sell, and that he preferred to not automatically set aside funds from the city’s annual budget for a narrow group of individuals as City Hall faces persistent budget deficits.

When asked for examples of private philanthropy in city government, Safaí cited Mayor London Breed’s recent bid to fundraise $25 million to acquire pandas from China for the San Francisco Zoo. He also mentioned donations from Salesforce to the San Francisco Unified School District and a donation of at least $1 million from an individual to the San Francisco Police Department “to help with their technology purchases.”

Cost

The San Francisco Controller’s Office estimated that it would cost $315,000 annually to administer the fund after the program had been set up. The city could begin paying off loans once the fund collected $1 million.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on N” campaign committee had raised $101,000, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. That includes $50,000 from the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Political Action Committee and $20,000 from Marina Cleaners Inc. The campaign committee that backed the failed Proposition B on the March ballot — the measure would have set minimum staffing levels for the police department — also gave $25,000.

No group opposing Proposition N had reported fundraising activity to the city.

History and context

City officials and department employees have been vocal in recent years about vacancies among law enforcement, 911 dispatchers, nurses and others involved in emergency management and response. The mayor and several supervisors have deployed numerous strategies to increase hiring. Proposition N is one of several proposed measures — including propositions F, H and I — on the November ballot that address first responder recruitment and retention.

Supervisors Hillary Ronen, Rafael Mandelman, Myrna Melgar and Aaron Peskin voted against putting the measure on the ballot. While they don’t oppose Proposition N, Supervisors Peskin, Melgar and Mandelman expressed concern about overloading the ballot.

Peskin, the Board of Supervisors’ president and mayoral hopeful, said it was unnecessary to put the issue before voters when the supervisors could establish the fund on their own, a sentiment Mandelman echoed.

“Sometimes you’re bringing something to the voters and it’s really important to get them to weigh in on it, but I don’t really see that,” Mandelman said. “It seems like it certainly could have been done just as a regular old ordinance, although I think people would have asked, even if it weren’t on the ballot, ‘How are we funding this?’”

Safaí said he wanted a mandate from voters to create the fund.

“It’s important that the voters of San Francisco have an opportunity to weigh in on this and make a strong statement,” he said at a July 30 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition N requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

Editor’s note: This story was updated Oct. 9, 2024, to clarify that the “Yes on N” campaign committee received donations from the campaign committee that had backed Proposition B on the March ballot.

The post Proposition N — Create Fund to Pay Off First Responders’ Student Loans appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition J would create an oversight body to evaluate local government expenditures on programs benefiting children and youths. If the oversight team discovered inappropriate or unnecessary spending, officials could withhold funds.

The measure would also redirect many tens of millions of dollars annually to those programs, potentially drawing down other parts of City Hall’s budget if officials could not increase revenue to compensate.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to put Proposition J on the November ballot. In the official proponent letter, signed by all supervisors but Aaron Peskin and Connie Chan, they say it would enhance the “transparency and efficiency” of how the city allocates money to help young people.

That would include better tracking of dollars that City Hall gave the San Francisco Unified School District through the Public Education Enrichment Fund, which voters first authorized in 2004 and renewed in 2014.

Proposition J “works off what the voters already passed about 10 years ago, but adds teeth with budget accountability tools,” said Supervisor Myrna Melgar, Proposition J’s author, at a July meeting discussing the measure.

Opposition

No opposition argument was submitted to the San Francisco Department of Elections.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the Ethics Commission had reported no official campaign spending for or against the measure.  

What it would do

In 1991, San Francisco voters first set aside city funding for programs benefiting children and youths by passing that year’s Proposition J. City voters have since approved similar measures that have increased the amounts that must go toward those programs each year.

As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars in annual outlays flow to various city agencies and the school district — which is largely funded by the state — intended to pay for preschool, after-school and summer programs, tutoring, social workers and many other services.

Proposition J would create an oversight body, called the Our Children, Our Families Initiative, to track those expenditures. The mayor and the district superintendent would lead the team, which would be staffed by City Hall and district personnel. It would submit annual reports to the Board of Supervisors, which would discuss them in public hearings and use their findings to make budget decisions.

The measure would increase scrutiny of the Public Education Enrichment Fund, which pays for arts, music and sports programs, as well as those supporting early childhood education. The district would give the oversight body comprehensive proposals every five years for how it would use the fund’s dollars that originated from City Hall, and yearly reports on where that money went. If spending plans did not fall within guidelines, the mayor and Board of Supervisors could withhold the city’s contributions from the fund.

Cost

Proposition J would also revise the parameters for the Student Success Fund, which voters approved in 2022 and which gives grants to schools to boost student academic performance and social-emotional wellness. The fund’s expenditures would no longer count toward the city’s annually required spending on programs for children and youths.

This bureaucratic detail would have major financial consequences, creating a spending hole that would need to be filled. This fiscal year, officials would have to siphon up to $35 million from other parts of the city’s budget, according to an analysis by the controller’s office. Each subsequent year, for 14 years, the hole would be between $35 million and $83 million.

Staffing the oversight body would cost between $140,000 and $570,000 annually, the controller said.

Interactions with propositions D and E

This November, San Francisco voters will also consider local propositions D and E, which could eliminate many city commissions and similar bodies. Either proposition’s passage could cause the dissolution of the Our Children, Our Families Council — the advisory body that now coordinates citywide spending goals for children and youth programs but does not comprehensively review expenditures. If that happened, and Proposition J also were passed, the new oversight body would assume the responsibilities of the Our Children, Our Families Council.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition J requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition J — Increase Oversight of City Funding for Children and Youth Programs appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition L would tax ride-hail companies, including those that operate self-driving cars, and devote the tax revenue to improving San Francisco’s public transit.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates the Muni public transit system, faces a major budget deficit due to reduced ridership and fare revenue in the pandemic’s aftermath. 

Proposition L’s funding would protect up to a dozen bus lines from being cut and expand discount fare programs, says nonprofit San Francisco Transit Riders in the official proponent argument for the measure. That would help commuters who could not afford ride-hail services, lacked personal vehicles or faced mobility issues and might struggle to walk or bike to their destinations. 

Without this funding, overall traffic congestion could increase and parking availability could decrease, the proponents say. With fewer public transit options, commuters might resort to cars or ride-hail services, which are less passenger-efficient than buses and light rail. 

The measure might also help the city’s downtown area recover from the ravages of COVID-19, said proponent and public transit advocate Chris Arvin. If foot traffic to the area increased, more frequent bus service would be necessary to accommodate it; today’s service is sparse outside of peak commute hours. 

Proposition L’s supporters include many local and other groups, like Transport Workers Union Local 250A, which represents Muni operators, as well as Senior and Disability Action, the Sierra Club and the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club. State Sen. Scott Wiener and a majority on the Board of Supervisors support it too. 

Opposition

But Proposition L would also indirectly increase ride-hail costs, says the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in the official argument against the measure. Companies would make up their losses from the tax by jacking up the price of their rides, which are more convenient for senior and disabled commuters than buses since they offer door-to-door service, the chamber said. 

Proposition L would also fail to address the root causes of the transportation agency’s financial woes while insufficiently holding the government accountable for how it would spend the tax revenue, the chamber added. 

Other opponents include TogetherSF Action, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, California Nightlife Association and SF CITI, a tech industry trade association. 

What it would do

Proposition L would levy a new tax on ride-hail companies, including Lyft, Uber, private limousine services and Waymo, which uses autonomous vehicles. The tax would apply to companies’ gross receipts, or total earnings from rides provided in San Francisco. Earnings from rides outside the city or from other services such as meal delivery would not be taxed.

The tax rate would increase with the companies’ earnings: 

• 1% on earnings between $500,000.01 and $1 million;
• 2.5% on earnings between $1,000,000.01 and $2.5 million;
• 3.5% on earnings between $2,500,000.01 million and $25 million;
• 4.5% on earnings over $25 million.

The tax could generate $25 million annually, the city controller said, based on the past performance of a similar tax. Up to 2% of the tax revenue would go toward covering the cost of administering it.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency would use the money to boost bus service frequency and add routes to public schools, libraries and parks. It would also expand discount fare and fare-free programs for people with disabilities, seniors, youths and students. The funding might let Muni increase outreach for, and uptake of, its Lifeline Pass program, which discounts rides within the city for low-income people. 

San Francisco’s current 3.25% tax on ride-hail companies is lower than those in some other major cities, and that would still be true if Proposition L passed. For example, the tax is 6% in Washington, D.C., and 8.9% in New York, plus a $2.75 congestion charge for any ride that passes through Manhattan.  

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on L” campaign committee had raised $278,677, including $40,000 from Jessica Jenkins, $30,000 from Laura Yakovenko and $20,000 from Benjamin Cochran, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

The “No on Prop L” campaign committee had raised $912,838, including $750,000 from Uber and $103,000 from Lyft.

History and context

Muni serves hundreds of thousands of passengers every day, connecting them to work, school, food, housing and more. 

But that foot traffic is a shadow of what it was before the pandemic, which normalized remote work. The drop in people taking buses and light rail to their downtown offices diminished fare revenue, which accounts for 10% of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s operating budget, down from a pre-pandemic 30%. Emergency financial assistance from the federal government is set to run out by 2026. 

SFMTA faces a $214 million deficit that threatens services in coming years. 

San Francisco has a goal of producing net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. Transportation was responsible for 44% of citywide emissions in 2020, and that share could fall if public transit were more robust and more people rode it, according to the city’s 2021 Climate Action Plan. 

Ride-hail companies have made city roads more congested and grown San Francisco’s carbon footprint. From 2010 to 2016, the companies were responsible for 51% of the city’s increased traffic and 47% of total vehicle miles traveled, according to a 2018 county Transportation Authority report. Ride-hail vehicles emit roughly 50% more carbon dioxide per passenger mile traveled than commuter-owned vehicles, according to a 2019 report from the California Air Resources Board. 

Votes needed to pass

Proposition L requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

The tax would be permanent unless voters repealed it through a future ballot measure, which would also require a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass. The Board of Supervisors could amend the tax with a two-thirds vote, as long as they did not fundamentally change it — for example, by redirecting it to apply to a different industry. 

This November, San Francisco voters will also consider Proposition M, an overhaul of the city’s business tax. In the event that voters passed both measures:

• If Proposition L got more “yes” votes, both measures would be implemented.
• If Proposition M got more “yes” votes, only Proposition M would be implemented.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition L — Tax Ride-Hailing and Autonomous Vehicle Companies to Fund Public Transit appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition K would start a process that could, about a year later, permanently close a large section of San Francisco’s Great Highway to car traffic so that the city could later turn it into a park. The measure would not fund the design or creation of the park.

The measure would affect a section of roadway called the Upper Great Highway, a 2-mile stretch along Ocean Beach on the city’s western edge, from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard.

Proposition K marks the latest chapter in a saga that began early in the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, the Board of Supervisors closed the Upper Great Highway to vehicle traffic so that residents could walk and bike there while social distancing, to slow the disease’s spread — a move that was widely popular. In 2022, the board approved a pilot project that kept the street closed to cars on weekends but open to them during weekdays. The pilot project is set to end at the close of 2025, at which point the board would decide whether to change the road’s use.

If passed, Proposition K would decide the Upper Great Highway’s fate instead.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

Five San Francisco supervisors co-sponsored Proposition K’s placement on the ballot: Myrna Melgar, Dean Preston, Rafael Mandelman, Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio, who has been the most vocal of the measure’s advocates. Engardio represents the Sunset District, which contains the Upper Great Highway.

Proposition K is a “once-in-a-century opportunity” to transform the road into an iconic oceanside park that could bring the Sunset to life, Engardio has said.

Proponents say that the highway’s pilot project has been a success, drawing an average of 4,000 visitors per weekend day. Making the road a permanent park could boost business opportunities, reduce automobile pollution in the area and create more safe space for pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the beach, they say. The park would also increase coastal access for people with mobility challenges, such as wheelchair users and those with physical disabilities.

Proposition K has secured support from prominent political figures, including Mayor London Breed, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, state Sen. Scott Wiener, BART Board director Janice Li and former District 1 Supervisor Eric Mar.

Friends of Great Highway Park, a group that hosts events and activities on the roadway during weekends, has advocated loudly for the proposition. Other supporters include a diverse array of organizations focused on urban planning, environmentalism and local politics, like Livable City, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Sierra Club, SPUR, the San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco YIMBY and GrowSF.

Opposition

Since the proposition’s announcement, it has divided residents on San Francisco’s west side. Opponents expressed frustration that Engardio did not consult them before deciding to place it on the ballot. They argue that it’s unfair for voters citywide to decide their neighborhood’s future.

Opponents say the Upper Great Highway is vital for north-south travel, and permanently closing it to vehicles could worsen traffic and divert it into residential areas, as well as lengthen commutes — a recent study by the city’s transportation agency found a minor potential impact on commutes. Some merchants worry that these inconveniences would discourage long-time customers from continuing to patronize them.

District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan represents the Richmond District, home to many Great Highway commuters in the city’s northwest. She opposes the ballot measure, arguing that it’s too extreme; she has proposed converting only half the road into recreational space and keeping the rest of it open to cars.

Some prominent local groups representing Chinese and other Asian American residents oppose Proposition K, including the Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club, Chinese American Democratic Club and Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco.

Aaron Peskin, Board of Supervisors president and a mayoral candidate, also opposes Proposition K, calling it divisive and an “unfunded mandate.” Mayoral candidates Daniel Lurie and Mark Farrell oppose Proposition K, too.

Other detractors include Open The Great Highway, a group formed to oppose the road’s closure, and several neighborhood groups, including Planning Association for the Richmond, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and Neighborhoods United SF.

What it would do

Proposition K would not immediately and permanently close the Upper Great Highway to cars and transform it into a park.

Instead, the measure’s passage would begin a long bureaucratic process, involving numerous local and state government agencies, that would lead to that outcome.

Because the measure would not create funding for the park, officials would have to find a way to pay for it.

If voters passed Proposition K, then the San Francisco Planning Department would propose changes to the land-use rules governing the Upper Great Highway so that it could become a park. The Board of Supervisors would publicly review that proposal, and residents and concerned citizens could attend hearings and offer comment.

The board would likely approve the proposal, as rejecting it could be seen as “not implementing the will of the voters,” said Jonathan Goldberg, legislative aide to Supervisor Engardio. That would be “unheard of,” he added, and could expose the city to risk of lawsuit.

To proceed, the city would also need approval from state regulators.

At that point — possibly 10 months to a year after Proposition K’s passage, at the soonest — the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department could start designing the new park, a process that might take several years, Goldberg said. In the meantime, the department could apply to close the road to vehicle traffic permanently, so that it could be used entirely for recreation.

The Recreation and Parks Department did not respond to requests for comment about its role in implementing Proposition K.

Cost

The San Francisco Controller’s Office analyzed what it would cost City Hall to manage the Upper Great Highway after permanently closing it to car traffic — a scenario that Proposition K’s passage would enable, but not immediately bring about.

The office’s analysis did not include the costs associated with obtaining regulatory approval for the closure. It also omitted design and construction costs for a new park.

By closing the Upper Great Highway to car traffic, the city would save an estimated $1.5 million in one-time infrastructure expenses, Deputy Controller ChiaYu Ma wrote in the office’s analysis. That factors in $4.3 million that the city would avoid spending on canceled road construction and traffic signal replacements, offset by $860,000 to $2.7 million in new costs for traffic calming measures and traffic lights to divert vehicles from the Upper Great Highway to alternative routes.

Keeping the road closed to cars may cause increased expenses for trash collection and other operations, Ma said. But overall, the city would save $350,000 to $700,000 each year in reduced road and traffic light maintenance, as well as sand removal.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on K” campaign committee had raised $608,553, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

Much of that money has come from leaders in tech and finance, including $350,000 from Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman; $75,000 from Emmett Shear, a partner at venture capital firm Y Combinator; $50,000 from Anatoly Yakovenko, CEO of Solana Labs, a public blockchain platform developer; and $49,900 from the Benjamin Spero, managing director of Spectrum Equity, an investment firm.

The “No on K” campaign committee had raised $110,645. Matt Boschetto, a candidate in the District 7 supervisor race, created the committee.

By a quirk of election laws, the measure-focused committee lacks the per-person $500 contribution limit that applies to committees focused on getting candidates into office.  Boschetto cannot legally use the funds from “No on K” for his supervisorial campaign. Boschetto’s father, Michael Boschetto, had contributed $50,000 to “No on K,” while the Boschetto Family Partnership added $10,000 and Matt Boschetto himself gave $5,000.

Anti-Proposition K group Open the Great Highway is the target of an ethics complaint, which alleges that it fundraised without first registering as a political action committee.

History and context

Proposition K is highly controversial. Both supporters and opponents have contested how it is presented to voters, from its title on the ballot to its official financial analysis. It has been the focus of numerous political demonstrations and media roundtables, and candidates in many supervisorial races have invoked the issue in their campaigns.

In 2022, San Franciscans considered a ballot measure that would have ended the Upper Great Highway pilot program and allowed cars back on the road seven days a week, as well as let cars resume driving on John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the measure, with 65.11% voting against it.

Closing the Upper Great Highway could leave the city’s Chinese American community feeling isolated, said Supervisor Chan at a recent debate on Proposition K, hosted by local radio station KALW. Chan, the only Asian American on the Board of Supervisors, said that Chinese residents frequently use the thoroughfare to travel between the Richmond and Sunset districts, both of which have historically served as cultural hubs for the community. But, of all drivers who take the Upper Great Highway, just 5% use it to commute between those districts, according to a 2021 study of pre-pandemic traffic data. Most drivers use it to get to the South Bay, the study found.

The section of road south of the Upper Great Highway, which is called the Great Highway Extension and connects the Sunset District to Daly City, has already been slated for closure due to coastal erosion. The Upper Great Highway faces a moderate risk of erosion, with its southern portion particularly affected.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition K requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

Editor’s notes:

On 10/15/2024, this article was updated with information about the share of drivers who use the Upper Great Highway to commute between neighborhoods, as well as to the South Bay.

On 10/18/2024, it was corrected to call Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaker emerita.

The post Proposition K — Authorize Great Highway to Become Car-Free, Possibly a Park appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition H would lower the age by which members of the San Francisco Fire Department could qualify for their maximum retirement packages, from 58 to 55, in an effort to encourage them to protect their health by leaving the work sooner.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

Earlier retirements could save firefighters’ lives by reducing their exposure to smoke and toxic chemicals, which recent studies show to be more harmful than previously known.

“We have to take a step to make things better for the lives of those who have come after us and the younger folks who have come in the department,” said Floyd Rollins, president of the union representing the city’s firefighters, at a July meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

The measure has the support of the full board and nearly every prominent candidate for mayor in this election.

Opposition

But one mayoral candidate opposes Proposition H: incumbent Mayor London Breed.

Breed is backing Proposition F, which would bolster the San Francisco Police Department’s dwindling ranks by allowing retirement-age officers to continue working while being paid pension benefits. Breed said that supporting both propositions F and H would be fiscally irresponsible as it would increase the cost of government at a time when City Hall faces persistent budget deficits.

“When you’re a candidate, you can promise the world,” Breed told the San Francisco Examiner. “When you’re mayor, you have an obligation to be a responsible leader.”

San Francisco, which has a $15.9 billion budget, is struggling to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote-work norms have emptied downtown offices and depressed commercial real estate values and tax revenues. Officials in July finalized numerous cuts to departments and services to resolve the latest projected deficit of nearly $800 million over the next two years.

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco also opposes Proposition H. The party’s chair, Starchild, said in the official opponent argument that it would overturn voters’ “prudent action” of 2011, when they approved today’s pension rules. Starchild said those changes protected firefighters’ retirement packages by helping San Francisco avoid bankruptcy during the boom-and-bust cycle that culminated in the 2008 Great Recession — some other California cities did not fare as well. Proposition H shows a “lack of planning” for the next bust, Starchild said.

“Better to explore ways to protect firefighters and reward them for their heroic service which do not increase unsustainable future spending obligations,” Starchild said.

What it would do

Today, firefighters and other fire department staff hired before Jan. 7, 2012, can qualify for their maximum retirement packages by age 55. Those hired on or after that date can qualify by age 58.

If passed, Proposition H would make all department staff eligible for their largest retirement packages by age 55.

Cost

The estimated annual cost to implement the measure would be about $3.7 million in the first year and increase as more firefighters started their retirements earlier. City Hall would cover the difference by taking on debt — and interest rates would push total annual costs even higher, possibly reaching $21.2 million by 2041, said City Controller Greg Wagner during the July meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Costs would later fall as the debt was paid off, Wagner said.

Those estimates do not include the fire department’s potential expenses to increase its hiring rate, to fill positions vacated by firefighters who retired earlier, Wagner noted. It costs about $115,000 to hire and train a firefighter.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on H” campaign committee had raised $1,397,950, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. 

No group opposing Proposition H had reported fundraising activity to the city.

History and context

This ballot measure has roots in efforts, from over a decade ago, to rein city workers’ pensions, which were a growing financial burden on local government. At the time, when San Francisco’s budget was about $6.8 billion, the city controller projected that pension costs would grow to nearly $1 billion by 2021.

That was due to many factors, such as climbing wages and health care costs, and eligibility rules for pensions. Proposition C, passed by voters in 2011, sought to improve the city’s finances by altering those rules.

This included pushing back the age by which public workers became eligible for their full pensions, equivalent to 90% of their final annual compensation: Most personnel could retire with full pension benefits at age 65, raised from 62; for firefighters and police officers, the threshold became age 58, up from 55. The firefighters’ union supported Proposition C, as did the full Board of Supervisors and then-Mayor Ed Lee.

New findings on risks of firefighting

Recent research has better revealed the long-term health impacts of firefighting, animating supporters of Proposition H.

Exposure to smoke, toxic chemicals and fumes contributes to mental health problems, cardiac issues, chronic health conditions and, most notably, cancer — the leading cause of occupational death among firefighters, who have a 14% higher risk of dying from the disease than the general population, according to the official proponent argument for Proposition H.

Firefighters may suffer higher death rates from all cancers, including mesothelioma, which is especially aggressive and deadly, according to a 2020 study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study found that older firefighters had higher incidences of lung cancer, leukemia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, also known as COPD, correlating with exposure to fires.

Even firefighters’ protective clothing may be harming them. Scientists have long known that firefighters’ bodies have high levels of PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” linked to increased rates of cancer. A study published last year revealed that their clothing contained PFAS. And a study earlier this year showed that those chemicals became more concentrated in protective gear that was deteriorated or subjected to high temperatures.

During the July meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Lorenzo Rosas, a legislative aide to Supervisor Catherine Stefani, said that 300 active and retired San Francisco firefighters had died of cancer in less than 20 years, and female firefighters had breast cancer rates six times higher than the national average.

Rosas said that not passing Proposition H, and maintaining the status quo, would take a financial as well as a human toll. The firefighters’ union faced “$12.3 million in increased compensation costs, solely as a result of more firefighters’ cancer claims,” he said.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition H requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition H — Enable Earlier Retirement for Firefighters appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.