San Francisco voters are once again being handed a small novella disguised as a ballot, with 10 local measures and a regional transit measure awaiting them Nov. 3. The pile is hardly unprecedented — voters faced 15 local propositions in 2024 and 25 in 2016 — but this year’s crop makes one thing clear: this ballot is a further test of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s political coattails.
The local measures were finalized Aug. 10. Four qualified by petition signatures, three were placed on the ballot by Lurie and three by the Board of Supervisors. The Regional Transit Measure also qualified by petition.
Of course, if you were looking for even more questions to vote on this year, don’t worry: there are 14 more measures to vote for on November’s state ballot. You can find out more about those here.
Charter amendments
Measure A: Charter Changes Affecting Various City Departments and Commissions
Measure A restructures San Francisco’s boards and commissions, eliminating or consolidating some and changing how others operate. Sponsored by Board President Rafael Mandelman, it follows recommendations from a task force created by a 2024 ballot measure. Supervisors limited the proposal to relatively uncontroversial cuts and housekeeping changes, but some groups remain opposed.
Measure B: Establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and a Public Bank
Measure B would establish a city-controlled lending company and lay the groundwork for a San Francisco public bank to finance social housing, underserved small businesses, and other public purposes. Supervisor Chyanne Chen is the primary sponsor, while the public-bank concept has long been associated with Supervisor Jackie Fielder. Fiscal watchdogs have mounted opposition.
Measure C: Contributions to the Housing Fund
Measure C would increase the city’s annual contribution to its voter-approved Housing Trust Fund to $125 million for subsidized housing. It is part of a political agreement between subsidized and market-rate housing developers brokered by Supervisor Myrna Melgar. The other side of the deal was legislation reducing inclusionary-housing requirements on market-rate projects. Lurie supports Measure C.
Measure D: Changes to Ballot Measure Process
Measure D would make it harder to qualify some citizen initiatives and change other rules governing local ballot measures. It is one of three Lurie-backed governance measures intended to reduce what the mayor sees as San Francisco’s “vetocracy”— the dispersion of power among commissions, departments, interest groups and other potential veto points.
Progressive and conservative opponents say Lurie, backed by business interests, is seeking too much power. The San Francisco Labor Council submitted the official opposition argument.
Measure E: City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting
Measure E would give the city administrator greater authority over contracting and procurement, streamline contracting procedures, and extend the administrator’s term from five to 10 years. Another one of Lurie’s governance measures, the official opposing statement was submitted by Larry Marso, a Republican activist, attorney, and M&A advisor.
Taken together, November’s long ballot presents voters with unusually consequential questions about who should control San Francisco government, whether subsidized housing should receive dedicated tax revenue, and how the city and region should pay to preserve transit service.
Measure F: Changes to Executive Branch Management
Measure F would give the mayor greater authority over the appointment, supervision, and removal of certain department heads and other officials. Lurie argues the changes would make it easier to remove commissioners accused of misconduct, such as the Sheriff’s Oversight Board president William Palmer. Small Business Forward, a progressive front group led by former Homeless Oversight commissioner Christin Evans, submitted the official opposition argument.
Ordinances
Measure G: Allowing Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park
Measure G would allow private vehicles back on the Upper Great Highway through Sunset Dunes Park, reversing the 2024 decision to make the roadway permanently car-free. Vehicles would generally be prohibited from Friday evening through Monday morning and on holidays, while emergency and certain authorized vehicles would retain access.
It would be the third citywide vote on the Great Highway, following votes in 2022 and 2024. The issue has become a cultural and political fight over automobiles, transit, and public space, with much of the strongest support for restoring vehicle access concentrated in neighborhoods adjacent to the roadway.
The real question may be whether this third vote will actually settle the matter. Both sides are as active in the courtroom on the matter as they are at the ballot box. A recent attempt by opponents to invalidate the new vote was struck down in Superior Court on Aug. 21.
Measure H: Parcel Tax to Fund Public Muni Operations
Measure H would impose a tiered property surtax, with base rates of $129 for single-family homes, $249 for multifamily properties, and $799 for commercial properties. Landlords of rent-controlled units could pass through up to half the levy, or $65 per unit. Proceeds would go to SFMTA for transit operations, after administration and refunds.
Measure H requires only a simple majority because transit advocates used a petition process to place it on the ballot. The strategy follows the near miss of a 2022 Muni bond, which fell just short of the two-thirds vote required for passage.
Supporters say without new revenue, service cuts could trigger a “death spiral” of declining ridership and fare revenue. Fiscal hawks dispute this, and also argue that the way it was put on the ballot is a loophole that should be closed (indeed, there’s a measure on the state ballot to do just that). Lurie is the most prominent supporter; the San Francisco Republican Party submitted the opposing argument.
Measure I: Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax
Measure I would change the city’s real-property transfer tax and dedicate revenue from the high-end tax to social housing and related programs. It follows the 2020 Measure I, which doubled the tax on property transactions of $10 million or more.
The 2020 measure’s campaign emphasized social housing, but that commitment was not included in the legal language, a tactic meant to allow passage with a simple majority. Because it was a general tax, then-Mayor London Breed treated the additional revenue as General Fund money rather than dedicating it to housing, angering progressives.
The 2026 Measure I, placed on the ballot by the Democratic Socialists of America and housing advocates, seeks to close that perceived loophole. Lurie has called the proposal an unaccountable “slush fund” that would divert money from other city services.
Measure J: Removal of Foreclosure Exemption for Real Property Transfer Tax
Measure J would eliminate a foreclosure-related exemption from San Francisco’s real-property transfer tax, subjecting certain foreclosure transactions to the tax.
Lurie and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood originally proposed the BUILD Act, which would have reversed the 2020 transfer-tax increase to encourage market-rate housing development. That proposal stalled amid the city’s budget deficit and opposition from housing advocates.
Measure J was put on the ballot in response to a rise in claims of the foreclosure exemption involving large commercial properties. The existing exemption dates to 1984; an earlier attempt to eliminate the exemption, instead aimed at preventing foreclosures of homes, was shelved in 2012. Measure J would continue exemptions for single-family homes, condominiums and most buildings with four or fewer residential units.
Regional Transit Measure (RTM)
Connect Bay Area would impose a 14-year regional sales tax increase, generating roughly $1 billion annually for operations and improvements at BART, Caltrain, AC Transit, and Muni. The rate would be 1 percent in San Francisco and 0.5 percent in the other participating counties.
The measure was authorized by the State Legislature but qualified for the ballot through voter signatures. Like Measure H, it is fundamentally a referendum on whether Bay Area transit agencies should receive new dedicated operating revenue or instead make substantial service cuts.
Lurie and most of City Hall support it, while taxpayer advocates led by former state Senator Quentin Kopp oppose it. A lawsuit challenging the measure’s ballot language in Santa Clara County is also pending.
Taken together, November’s long ballot presents voters with unusually consequential questions about who should control San Francisco government, whether subsidized housing should receive dedicated tax revenue, and how the city and region should pay to preserve transit service.
