Voter's Guide

For SF Residents

People often skip voting for propositions because they don't know enough about them. We've extracted the main information below.


Proposition 1 — Issues $4B for Housing Programs

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • California needs housing for hardworking families, seniors and people with disabilities.
  • Prop 1 honors veterans by helping them buy a home when they return from service.
People AGAINST say
  • Prop 1 would only provide housing for a small number of people.
  • If California keeps borrowing money, all residents will end up paying higher taxes.

Proposition 2 — Allows CA to Use Tax Income for a Mental Health Housing Program

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • The best way to help someone with mental illness is to get them a place to live.
  • Prop 2 costs the state nothing and would provide housing for our most at-risk residents.
People AGAINST say
  • Counties should make the decisions when it comes to housing for people with severe mental illnesses.
  • Prop 2 will help home builders, instead of people with mental illnesses.

Proposition 3 — Issues $8.9B for Water and Environmental Projects

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Prop 3 will provide safe drinking water to millions of Californians.
  • Our state must prepare now for future droughts and floods.
People AGAINST say
  • Prop 3 does not do enough to fix the state’s water shortage.
  • Too much money will be spent on parks, hiking trails and wildlife.

Proposition 4 — Issues $1.5B for Children's Hospitals

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Children’s hospitals care for California’s most needy children, no matter what their families can pay.
  • Prop 4 will help keep our hospitals up to date and ready to serve more children.
People AGAINST say
  • Prop 4 will require the state to borrow money and pay it back over many years.
  • Instead of borrowing money, California should be looking at improving health care overall.

Proposition 5 — Gives Old Folks a Property Tax Discount When They Move

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Prop 5 will help seniors and people with severe disabilities to move without having to pay higher taxes.
  • When seniors move, more homes will be available for families with children.
People AGAINST say
  • Less money would go to schools and public services, like fire departments.
  • Prop 5 would help wealthy seniors. It would do nothing to bring down the cost of rent or address homelessness.

Proposition 6 — Repeals Last Year's Gas Tax

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Transportation taxes and fees are too high for low-income residents and California’s working families.
  • Voting yes on Prop 6 would immediately lower the price of gasoline and the cost to register a vehicle.
People AGAINST say
  • Transportation taxes and fees are paying for more than 6500 projects throughout the state.
  • If we don’t have money to pay for important bridge and road repairs, California will be less safe.

Proposition 7 — Helps Make Daylight Saving Year-Round

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Always being on Daylight Saving Time would have positive public health effects. When people don’t have to change their clocks, the risk of heart attacks and strokes goes down.
  • This change would also reduce energy costs and increase work production.
People AGAINST say
  • If the sun rises an hour later in the winter this will have negative effects on schools, traffic and public safety.
  • Having a different time than other western states would create confusion.

Proposition 8 — Limits Dialysis Clinics' Revenue

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Prop 8 will stop dialysis companies from overcharging patients.
  • This measure will lower healthcare costs for all Californians.
People AGAINST say
  • California’s dialysis clinics provide some of the highest quality care in the country.
  • Prop 8 will force community dialysis clinics to cut services and close.

Proposition 10 — Allows Broad Rent Control Again

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • The high cost of rent is hurting seniors, families and low-income residents.
  • Prop 10 will allow local communities to choose whether they want rent control.
People AGAINST say
  • Rent control will lead landlords to sell their property or stop renting. This will make rents even more expensive.
  • Governments should not be able to tell single-family homeowners how much they can charge for rent.

Proposition 11 — Requires EMT's to be On-call During Breaks

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Prop 11 protects public safety and makes sure that private ambulance companies can quickly respond to emergencies.
  • Ambulance employees deserve more training and mental health supports.
People AGAINST say
  • No argument against Prop 11 was submitted.

Proposition 12 — Sets Minimum Space Requirements for Farm Animals

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • It is cruel and unsafe to keep animals in small cages.
  • Increasing cage sizes will reduce the risks of food poisoning and farm pollution.
People AGAINST say
  • This measure does not go far enough to protect farm animals.
  • Prop 12’s cage-size rules would not be big enough for all types of egg-laying hens.

Proposition A — Reinforces The Embarcadero Seawall for Earthquake Safety

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Given the likelihood of a major earthquake in the next 30 years, passage of Prop A would enable the City to act now to reinforce the Seawall and prevent flooding of BART and MUNI tunnels so vital escape routes would remain open in an emergency.
  • A January 2018 poll showed that 73% of San Francisco residents support the idea.
  • A citizen oversight committee will review spending and issue an annual report.
  • An estimated 4,000 jobs would be created by the Seawall Program. All contracts would be subject to the "First Source Hiring Program", which fosters employment opportunities for qualified economically disadvantaged individuals, and the "Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance", which supports the hiring of local businesses.
People AGAINST say
  • Opinions of seismologists and climate experts on the effectiveness of seawalls are divided, so there may be other, more effective ways to protect the waterfront.
  • The money raised by this proposition is only the first phase of a multi-year project, with a total estimated cost of $2-5 billion. This bond only finances upgrades to the three-mile stretch of the San Francisco coastline between Fisherman's Wharf and AT&T park.
  • Property owners will be able to pass on up to 50% of their property tax increase to their tenants, which could drive further rises in already high San Francisco rents.
  • The businesses in the area behind the Seawall should pay for its repair and upgrade.

Proposition B — Adds Privacy Guidelines for the City of San Francisco

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • All San Francisco residents and visitors have a fundamental right to privacy, so we need privacy guidelines at the City level, to apply to our own laws.
  • The Privacy First Policy would remove the profit motive from the use of personal information by standardizing how the use of personal information is regulated in San Francisco, setting a precedent for cities across the country seeking to protect the privacy rights of their residents.
People AGAINST say
  • Proposition B authorizes local government to “amend existing ordinances without voter approval, so long as the change is ‘not inconsistent with the purpose or intent of the law’” and could enable officials to limit access to government records or change the composition of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to be more friendly politicians or the very business interests they say they are trying to rein in.
  • Proposition B would not give elected local officials much additional authority, since City privacy laws would still be preempted by existing Federal and State laws.

Proposition C — Taxes Large Businesses to Help Homelessness

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Funding homeless services is good for all San Francisco residents and business owners. It will help attract tourists and workers to the City and improve public health and safety by keeping people off the streets.
  • This would create a clear plan for funding a comprehensive solution to our homelessness problem. Spending would be based on advice of experts in the field and the proposal would promote transparency in City funding.
  • People are confused about how much the City currently spends addressing homelessness. About two-thirds of last year’s funding went to preventing people from becoming homeless. Without Prop C, the City is only spending about $10 per person per day on services for the homeless population.
  • The City desperately needs more resources to address our homelessness crisis. Prop C would only be the third funding measure passed in 20 years for homeless and housing services in San Francisco.
  • Prop C is supported by dozens of community leaders, nonprofits, and elected representatives at local, state, and national levels. The only organized opposition comes from corporate interests who offer no alternative solutions.
  • Prop C will help protect people of color, youth, and LGBTQ people, who disproportionately experience homelessness and housing instability.
People AGAINST say
  • The City’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development has stated that this new tax would disproportionately impact employees in mid-level jobs, like administrative staff in retail companies and grocery stores.
  • The businesses that would pay this added tax make up approximately 15 to 20% of the City's job base. This measure could cause a major drain of middle-income jobs from San Francisco.
  • San Francisco already is spending more than $300 million a year on homelessness and the problem seems to be getting worse. Throwing more money at the problem won’t help.
  • The City does have a homelessness problem, but it has historically been a federal responsibility to subsidize housing for the very poor. We should address this issue at a state and national level, not by increasing taxes on San Francisco’s job-makers.
  • San Francisco doesn’t want bureaucratic responses to homelessness. Residents voted down similar measures in 2016 and again in June of this year.
  • This proposal offers no accountability or plan. It’s a windfall for City Hall and the agencies who wrote the ordinance.

Proposition D — Additional Tax on Cannabis Businesses

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • Prop D could generate approximately $10 million in tax revenue each year that will be put toward education, equity programs, training and education of the cannabis workforce, and enforcement of city cannabis permitting.
  • San Francisco is the last major city in California to pass a tax on cannabis.
People AGAINST say
  • Prop D will result in higher costs that will put cannabis retailers out of business, driving buyers back to the black market where cannabis is not subject to testing and is of lower quality.
  • The increased taxes are just a way for the city to get more money to spend on matters unrelated to drug safety, education, or rehabilitation.

Proposition E — Re-allocates a Portion of Hotel Tax Revenue to Fund the Arts

(Read More)
People FOR say
  • This measure is not a tax increase, but is a fiscally-responsible approach to protecting and expanding arts and culture in San Francisco.
  • Over the years, the arts in San Francisco have lost tens of millions of dollars of funding as our economy has soared. The measure would dedicate funding to enhance arts and music programs in schools and make art more accessible and affordable to local residents.
  • This measure will ensure local residents have more access to arts and music programs in schools and make art more accessible and affordable. It will help local artists and programs, ensuring homegrown talent can continue to thrive in San Francisco. Federal funds for the arts may be eliminated. We must act locally.
People AGAINST say
  • Today's hotel tax revenue goes towards the General Fund, allowing for flexibility in spending based on the City’s most stressing needs such as public safety, education and infrastructure developments.
  • The issue is not support for the arts but government subsidy. Prop E would reduce the City's budget across all other services, creating pressure for near-term tax hikes.
  • Government subsidies can only harm our vibrant art scene. The City's art scene should depend upon individuals, not public officials making judgments.