November 2024 Ballot Measure Guide
San Francisco Propositions
Prop A – Support
This measure would authorize the SF Unified School District (SFUSD) to issue and sell bonds of up to $790 million to finance school facilities projects. The measure is not expected to raise current tax rates, given the expiration of previous bonds. Given that our education system is consistently underfunded, and there are school closures on the horizon, it is more important than ever that we make sure San Francisco’s youth have school facilities that are well-resourced, safe, welcoming places to learn and grow. We recommend YES to Prop A.
Prop B – Support
Prop B, which is a bond measure, will provide $390 million to fund health care infrastructure upgrades, street safety improvements, financing shelters, and other public space developments. A good portion of the funds will go to improvements at different healthcare facilities around SF, such as Laguna Honda Hospital and Chinatown Public Health Center. A little over $60 million will be allocated to improve streets and sidewalks, and about $50 million will be used for shelters and temporary housing. Around $70 million will be used for work on the Harvey Milk and Hallidie plaza. SDA has long been advocating for the latter to receive accessibility improvements and elevator repairs, and we hope that with the funds from Prop B this will finally happen. We recommend YES to Prop B.
Prop D – Oppose
Prop D would dissolve all but 22 of SF’s 130 appointed boards, commissions, and advisory bodies, creating a task force to determine which commissions to reinstate. The Mayor would have authority to appoint at least 2/3 of commission members, with the Board of Supervisors appointing 1/3. Commissions would lose their decision-making power and instead take on more advisory roles. Decision-making power would instead go to the head of the department overseen by each commission. SDA opposes this measure because it represents a major consolidation of mayoral power – in a city where the mayor already holds a disproportionate amount of power, compared to other major cities. For more information, read SF Rising’s excellent description of the ballot measure. We recommend NO to Prop D.
Prop F – Oppose
This proposition would allow officers with 25 years of experience to defer their retirement in exchange for a compensation bump for five years, and they would earn more interest on their retirement benefits. This program would be costly, possibly costing taxpayers up to $3 million. Programs like this one have been tried in the past, and were not successful at recruiting more officers, which proponents of this measure say it will do. Additionally, police officers already have, on average, the highest salaries and benefits compared to other safety and health professionals, like firefighters, social workers, and mental health providers. We do not believe in ignoring these other professions that work to serve the community, while investing in police that already have a leg up in terms of compensation, and have a history of violence against communities of color. We recommend NO to Prop F.
Prop G – Support
Prop G is funding for housing rental subsidies for seniors, people with disabilities, and families who are extremely low-income. In San Francisco that means they have an income of about $15k-35K/year. SDA has worked hard on the Prop G campaign. Prop G was started in the community from members of a broad coalition of organizations that advocate, serve, and organize seniors, people with disabilities, and families. With $8 million from the SF General Fund, Prop G will create around 500 units of truly deeply affordable housing, which has been at the top of our members’ list as a need for seniors and disabled people in SF. We recommend YES to Prop G.
Prop I – Support
Prop I would allow some nurses to be part of the city’s retirement plan, with increased benefits. It would also let 911 dispatchers, supervisors and coordinators switch to a different retirement plan starting in 2025, which would in turn provide more benefits than they currently receive. During a time of staffing shortages for nurses and other emergency personnel, recruitment and retention of these essential workers is extremely important. In an ongoing global pandemic especially, we need our healthcare workers to make sure people in San Francisco and beyond are able to get the care they need. We recommend YES to Prop I.
Prop L – Support
Many Bay Area transit agencies are facing huge budget deficits. If we don’t secure alternative funding measures, it’s likely that Muni will have to decrease the frequency of buses, cut bus routes, and eliminate bus stops. This could result in much longer commute times and more crowded buses. SDA has endorsed Prop L – also known as the Fund the Bus Campaign, which will provide funding to prevent Muni cuts and expand Muni service.
From the Fund the Bus Campaign: How Prop L Funds Muni Service & Affordability. Prop L will provide an estimated $25 million a year in Muni funding. This funding can only be used for:
Preventing Muni service cuts and expanding Muni service
Improving Muni access to parks, libraries and schools, by increasing route frequency, expanding routes or adding new routes
Sustaining and improving discount programs for youth, seniors, people with disabilities and people with low incomes.
There are some misconceptions out there about Yes On L, including worries that voting for this measure will somehow damage programs that make Muni more affordable for low income people, seniors, and people with disabilities. The opposite is true. Prop L will provide critical funding to preserve these programs, and if the measure fails, the discount passes will likely be the first programs on the chopping block. We recommend YES to Prop L.
Prop M – Oppose
According to the SF Chronicle, this measure would “cut taxes and fees for small companies and shift the city’s main business tax away from payroll expenses and toward sales.” We oppose Prop M because it contains a “poison pill” – a clause that could invalidate Prop L (a proposition we are strongly supporting. See above). If both Props L and M pass, it would require Prop L to get a 50% majority and garner more “yes” votes than Prop M in order to take effect. We recommend NO to Prop M.
Prop O – Support
Prop O, or the Reproductive Freedom Act, aims to safeguard abortion and contraception within official city policies. It will create a fund for reproductive rights and health services and mandate that the city publicly share information about access to reproductive services, including abortions and emergency contraception. Additionally, it will instruct city departments to keep an eye on state and federal policies that could lead to discrimination based on individuals’ reproductive health choices. SDA strongly supports access for all to the reproductive healthcare we need. People who seek abortions should have access to comprehensive information about where they can access services, and they should be able to feel safe knowing their information will be protected. We recommend YES to Prop O.
California Propositions
Prop 2 – Support
Prop 2 would issue $10 billion in bonds to fund construction and modernization of public education facilities. $8.5 billion will be allocated to elementary and secondary schools, and $1.5 billion will be allocated to community colleges.
Many school campuses have badly needed repairs, creating hazardous and dangerous facilities for the students and staff. Some campuses are due for modernization projects, as well as replacing old buildings that have fallen out of code. Currently, the fund that California has for fixing these issues and funding these improvements will likely be depleted by January of 2025. Voters have the chance to make sure that California’s educational facilities are safe and comfortable learning environments for students. A large portion of the funds would go to schools with populations that are predominantly low-income and communities of color. We recommend YES to Prop 2.
Prop 3 – Support
Prop 3 would declare marriage as a fundamental right in the CA constitution, and repeal Prop 8 (passed in 2008), which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In an age of “don’t say gay” laws and attacks on trans healthcare, it is extremely important to stand with LGBTQIA communities. We recognize that the freedom to marry is important, AND that there are many other pressing issues facing LGBTQIA people in this city, state, and country that also require our solidarity and action. We recommend YES to Prop 3.
Prop 4 – Support
This measure would allocate $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, as well as projects for environmental protection, water infrastructure, energy, and flood protection. If passed, this measure would assist in preparing for the effects of climate change, and work to ensure that we have safe water systems, protected green space and wildlife habitats, as well as protection from sea-level rise for coastal communities, and wildfire prevention. There is concern from the state government that if we do not take these steps to prepare and protect our wildlife and environment now, it will cost much more for future generations to address. We recommend YES to Prop 4.
Prop 5 – Support
Prop 5 would lower the vote threshold for local bond measures that fund housing and public infrastructure from 66.7% to 55%. This lower threshold would make it significantly easier for local governments and housing advocates to get voter approval to pass bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure. The current voter threshold being at 66.7% makes it much harder to pass housing and infrastructure measures, compared to other bond measures for school districts, which require only 55%. We recommend YES to Prop 5.
Prop 6 – Support
This measure would amend the state constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime and allow the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award credits to incarcerated people who voluntarily participate in work assignments. Currently, our state constitution allows for slavery as a punishment for a crime. This proposition, if passed, will have major impacts for communities of color and disabled people, who are disproportionately incarcerated, with around 40% of incarcerated persons being disabled.
The labor conditions for these types of work assignments can be harsh and with very little pay, additionally many incarcerated persons do not have autonomy over their assignments. We should not accept this type of labor anywhere. While the measure will not guarantee wage increases for incarcerated individuals, it does ensure that they will not be forced to work in harsh conditions that they did not have a choice in. Voters in other states around the US have recently passed similar measures to ban involuntary servitude. We recommend YES to Prop 6.
Prop 32 – Support
Prop 32 will raise the minimum wage across California from $16/hr to $18/hr. California has not raised its minimum wage since 2016, and we know that the cost of living has skyrocketed since then because of inflation and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This much needed measure will help Californians afford to pay their bills, rent, and healthcare costs. We recommend YES to Prop 32.
Prop 33 – Support
Prop 33 will repeal the 1995 law that prevents cities from creating and passing newer rent control laws to homes and properties built after 1995. This law is also known as the Costa Hawkins Act. Prop 33 will not make any changes to existing rent control laws, but would only allow for cities to pass local laws. Prop 33 hopes to address the ongoing housing and affordability crisis, with many California residents paying more than 30% of their income on rent. With rising housing costs, it is difficult for renters to not be rent-burdened, especially since wages have not kept pace with housing prices. Rent control will help to keep people in their homes and prevent displacement.
Prop 33, if passed, will also address predatory landlords who are charging unfair and unaffordable rent, making market-rate housing extremely unaffordable to many people, but especially seniors and people with disabilities, and those who rely on SSI/SSDI. This measure is also known as the Justice for Renters Act, and SDA housing organizers and members have been supporting local efforts in the Prop 33 campaign. We recommend YES to Prop 33.
Prop 34 – Oppose
Prop 34 would require some healthcare providers to spend 98% of their revenue on direct patient care, or they would risk losing their licenses or tax-exempt status. This measure would only apply to one organization, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has been influential on state and local housing policies, and is currently supporting Prop 33, the Justice for Renters Act. This measure is sponsored by the California Apartment Association, who is a notable opponent of Prop 33 and rent control in general. We recommend NO to Prop 34.
Prop 35 – Oppose
SDA joins partner organizations such as California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA) and California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN) in opposing Prop 35 on the grounds that it would endanger existing funding for Medi-Cal funding and other essential healthcare services. While taxing managed care organizations to fund Medi-Cal can seem like a positive change, the actual impacts of this proposition could end up reducing funding for home and community-based services aimed at older adults and people with disabilities. With such funding cuts, more people will be forced into institutions, or struggle to access the care they need in other ways. Prop 35 would be a step backward as well for our ability to advocate for these services our communities need. For more information, check out CPEHN’s press release on their opposition to prop 35. We recommend NO to Prop 35.
Prop 36 – Oppose
From Ballotpedia, “[this measure supports] making changes to Proposition 47 approved in 2014, including:
classify certain drug offenses as treatment-mandated felonies
increase the penalties for certain drug crimes by increasing sentence lengths and level of crime
require courts to warn those convicted of distributing illegal drugs of their liability if they sell deadly drugs such as fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, etc.
increase sentencing for theft, based on the value of the stolen property”
SDA strongly opposes this measure, as it would drastically increase criminalization in California, imprisoning an estimated 65,000 more people and extending their time in the prison industrial complex. Our vision for this world is one where our public money goes to community-based services and housing and healthcare for all, rather than disposing of people through incarceration and surveillance. We also know that disabled people are “overrepresented at all stages of the criminal justice system, from jail and prison to probation and parole.” For more information on the harms of Prop 36 and why defeating it is a disability priority, read Disability Rights California’s article on the measure. We recommend NO to Prop 36.