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.

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.

The measure could help fix persistent staffing shortages and improve emergency and health services in San Francisco, supporters say. 

“When we look to the future, we have to ask ourselves, who’s going to answer these calls?” said 911 dispatcher Valerie Tucker, referring to emergency phone calls, at a July public meeting about the measure. “Currently, we’re not even replacing the members that are leaving due to retirement.”

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

Support

Proponents argue that if Proposition I increased recruitment and staffing, City Hall could reduce expensive overtime, saving taxpayers money.

The measure is endorsed by the full Board of Supervisors and Service Employees International Union Local 1021, the chapter that represents nurses and emergency dispatchers. 

Opposition

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes Proposition I. The city’s government is already too large, and spending more money on public employees while expanding their ranks would increase the burden on taxpayers, the party says in its argument against the measure.

What it would do

Registered nurses working for the Department of Public Health can take shifts on a temporary basis, as needed, or they can be full-time city employees with pensions. The more years that employees work, the greater their retirement packages are.

When a temporary nurse transitions to a full-time position, the process can take months or even years. In the meantime, they are still treated as temporary, meaning their work hours do not count toward retirement benefits.

Proposition I would allow registered nurses who made that transition to then pay the city to retroactively include up to three years of prior temporary work for the city in calculations of their retirement benefits. 

Proposition I would rectify a long-standing inequity: Today’s nurses, most of whom are women, are the only city workers who cannot buy back pension time when they become permanent employees, said Heather Bollinger, a registered nurse and president of the chapter that represents them at SEIU Local 1021. 

Proposition I would also switch 911 dispatchers, their supervisors and related staff to better retirement plans on Jan. 4, 2025, though the new plans would be inferior to those for other emergency responders like firefighters and police officers. 

Cost

The cost to implement the measure would be between $3.8 million and $6.7 million in the first year and increase over time, according to estimates by the controller’s office. 

The city’s expenses would depend in part on how many nurses participated. As of July 2023, there were 1,400 registered nurses working for the city who would be eligible to buy back work credit, the controller’s office said. 

Costs tied to the retirement packages of emergency call staff would rise with other payroll expenses, including hiring new employees or giving people raises. The city employs 175 emergency dispatchers and related staff, the controller said. 

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on I” campaign committee had raised $110,000, entirely from SEIU Local 1021, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

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

History and context

A nationwide shortage of registered nurses, as well as long hiring and training processes, have created vacancies among San Francisco’s nurses in recent months. That has fueled burnout, which in turn threatens to cause more vacancies. Dispatchers have faced similar challenges. 

“This is not something that’s unique to San Francisco,” said District 11 Supervisor and mayoral candidate Ahsha Safaí, who co-wrote Proposition I, at the July public meeting. 

“But I can tell you, talking to nurses, talking to 911 operators,” Safaí said, “they are at a breaking point.” 

Between 20% and 25% of dispatcher positions were vacant as of April, according to data that Safaí obtained from the Department of Emergency Management, which employs dispatchers. The measure’s authors say the vacancies have caused longer wait times between when someone calls 911 and when a dispatcher picks up. The department aims to pick up 95% of calls within 15 seconds, but that rate was 90% in January 2022 and 73% in February 2024. 

And an estimated 169 registered nurse positions were vacant as of March, according to data that Safaí obtained from the Department of Public Health. Those vacancies have caused the quality of care to drop at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, a public hospital, according to a 2023 Civil Grand Jury report. 

The city is filling staff shortages by hiring temporary nurses, through corporate contractors, who are paid 14% more than their full-time counterparts would be, Safaí and other Proposition I supporters say.

By letting nurses put their prior work hours toward pensions, Proposition I could draw people away from private hospitals and toward full-time positions with San Francisco.

“Private hospitals can provide better salaries and benefits and work conditions but they cannot compete with the city’s retirement package for employees,” said Esther Lee, legislative aide to Safaí. 

Votes needed to pass

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

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition I — Give Nurses and 911 Operators Better Pension Plans appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

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.

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

Support

Proposition F would help sustain the San Francisco Police Department’s personnel levels while recruitment and training worked toward filling widespread vacancies resulting from attrition, according to the measure’s co-authors, including supervisors Matt Dorsey and Aaron Peskin, who is running for mayor. 

If current rates of hiring and retiring hold, the department could be 40% under-staffed within five years, Dorsey says in the measure’s official proponent argument, co-signed by seven of the city’s 11 supervisors. Other supporters include Mayor London Breed and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto.

“We are facing a retirement cliff,” said Dorsey, a former police department spokesperson, at a July meeting that the Board of Supervisors held to discuss the measure. Proposition F could prevent up to 50 retirements per year, Dorsey said.

Opposition

The proposition’s opponents call it “wasteful,” “ineffective” and “unfair” in the official argument against it, co-signed by supervisors Hillary Ronen, Shamann Walton and Dean Preston, as well as Police Commissioner Jesus Yanez, Public Defender Manohar Raju and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

The city has previously tried Proposition F’s dual salary-pension approach, but it did not increase officer retention, the opponents said. Now faced with persistent budget deficits, the city “cannot afford” to implement this measure, they said.

In a presentation to her board colleagues at the July meeting, Ronen said Proposition F could “start to build a resentment” from other city workers. That’s because the benefiting officers’ salaries would average between $400,000 and $500,000 in the first year — money that could instead go toward easing staff shortages among transit operators and many other quarters of City Hall, she said.

“If I was a social worker or a 911 call operator, and I saw these figures, I would say, ‘Why don’t they care about me?’” Ronen said.

What it would do

Proposition F would try to address the police department’s staffing woes by resuscitating the Deferred Retirement Option Program. Voters approved this program through Proposition B in 2008, but officials abandoned it after it failed to meet its goal of being cost-neutral. Dorsey said that, this time around, the public should expect the program to cost money.

Full-time sworn officers, sergeants and inspectors would be eligible to participate in the deferred retirement program if they were at least 50 years old and had accrued at least 25 years of service. Participants would patrol neighborhoods or conduct investigations for up to five years, after which they would retire. While in the deferred retirement program, they would receive salaries, as well as pension payments that the city would hold in a tax-deferred, interest-bearing account for participants to access after leaving the program.

To minimize administrative burdens, Proposition F would reduce how frequently the chief of police must report staffing levels to the city’s Police Commission, an oversight body, from every two years to every three years. The commission would report annually to the Board of Supervisors on police staffing goals, which include increasing female representation to 30% of recruits by 2030.

Cost

The Deferred Retirement Option Program annual cost would depend on how many officers participated and at what levels of their careers. Officers nearer the ends of their careers would receive greater compensation, with annual pension payments equaling up to 90% of their salaries upon joining the program. Younger officers would receive smaller salaries and pensions at lower percentages of their pay.

The deferred retirement program’s tab in its first year could range from $600,000 to $3 million, according to an analysis by the city controller’s office. After that it could cost up to $3 million annually, but it’s possible that the program would instead save the city up to $300,000 per year, said Alison Romano, chief investment officer of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System. That could happen if its pay structure enticed officers to participate before they reached their maximum salaries, calibrating their retirement packages to provide lower total payouts over time.

At best, retaining officers through the deferred retirement program would address only part of the police department’s staffing problem. Retirees are just a fraction of officer attrition, which far outpaces the department’s hiring and training process, according to the San Francisco Police Officers Association. Last year, the police department hired 33 full-duty sworn officers and lost 417.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on F” campaign committee had raised $231,630, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. 

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

History and context

The police department is about 500 people short of its staffing goal of 2,074 full-duty sworn officers, determined by its 2022 analysis in partnership with Matrix Consulting Group. Some crime researchers criticized the analysis since it relied on data from calls for service and police response times, rather than on the industry standards of population or crime levels, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

To staff shifts despite having too few personnel, the department is spending heavily on overtime pay. One officer earned $450,000 on top of his $207,000 annual salary, the Chronicle reported.

The Board of Supervisors has funded recent attempts to curtail attrition. It increased wages and retention bonuses with a $17 million payment to the police department in 2022, followed by an April 2023 payment of $166 million, to be paid over three years.

Votes needed to pass

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

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition F — Delay Officer Retirement to Bolster Police Staffing appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.