Voters in San Francisco will decide on whether to issue up to $300 million in bonds for affordable housing in the March 5 presidential primary election, along with a series of ballot ordinances and a separate charter amendment to require full staffing of police officers.
Proposition A: Affordable Housing
Proposition A, the Affordable Housing Bond, would authorize the city and county to issue general obligation bonds over the next three fiscal years that would result in an average property tax increase of about $5.70 per $100,000 of assessed home value.
The bonds would generate about $25 million annually, according to the county’s estimates, and would be paid back over a 30-year period, for a total added cost of $244.5 million in interest.
Half of the increase in property taxes could be recouped by landlords from tenants.
Mayor London Breed and the board of supervisors support the proposition, which needs two-thirds of voters’ approval for passage.
An opponent of the proposition, a member of the San Francisco Republican County Central Committee, argued that the city should not be pursuing housing goals set by the state that call for tens of thousands of new homes to be built by 2031.
San Francisco must build about 47,000 units for low- and moderate-income housing by that date, but the state has not provided the needed funding to do so.
Proposition B: Police Staffing
Another ballot measure, Proposition B, would amend the city and county charter to guarantee funding to fully staff the police department, which has seen significant shortages in recent years.
The amendment, which can pass with more than 50 percent approval, would set aside $16.8 million in next year’s budget to start the dedicated fund, and would add $75,000 each year for every unfilled officer position.
There were 1,580 full-time sworn officers in the San Francisco Police Department as of December 2023, according to City Controller Ben Rosenfield’s analysis of the amendment. There were about 300 vacant positions in 2023, according to proponents of the amendment.
“Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government.” City Controller Ben Rosenfield
The amendment would set staffing levels at 1,700 officers in fiscal year 2024-25, and gradually increase to more than 2,000 officers in fiscal year 2028-29. That could result in $70 million to $200 million in increased expenditures over that time, according to Rosenfield.
“Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government,” Rosenfield wrote in his analysis.
The proposition received mixed support from the board of supervisors. Board president Aaron Peskin supported the amendment, along with supervisors Ahsha Safai and Connie Chan.
Supervisor Matt Dorsey opposed the amendment, arguing the amendment would essentially put the cart before the horse by requiring expenditures that would result in the need for new taxes.
Props C, D, E, F: Property, ethics, police and drugs
Voters will also consider multiple propositions dealing with issues from taxes to police policy. Each proposition needs more than 50 percent to pass.
Proposition C, Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption and Office Space Allocation, would exempt properties that are converted from commercial to residential use from being assessed a transfer tax of up to 6 percent of the property’s value.
Proposition D, Changes to Local Ethics Laws, proposes tightening ethics laws for public employees to further prohibit bribes through third parties and require additional ethics training and disclosures.
Proposition E, Police Department Policies and Procedures, would make several controversial changes to police department policies, including allowing drones with facial recognition technology to engage in vehicle pursuits and assist in active investigations, not require use-of-force reports when nobody is physically injured, installing public surveillance cameras, and capping officers’ time doing paperwork at 20 percent.
The proposition is supported by Mayor London Breed. It is opposed by the ACLU of Northern California.
Proposition F, Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and Treatment for Recipients of City Public Assistance, would require screening and requiring treatment for substance abuse for anyone under the age of 65 that is a recipient of public assistance through the County Adult Assistance Programs known as CAAP.
The rule would require a recipient to attend a substance abuse program if the cost is provided for but would not cut the recipient off from benefits if they do not remain sober.