In addition to special elections for supervisors in Districts 2 and 4, San Francisco voters face a small but relatively consequential ballot on June 2. The ballot includes financing for emergency infrastructure, stricter term limits for certain elected officials, and two opposing plans to revise business taxes.
Measure A: $535 million in bonds for earthquake and public safety
If approved by a two-thirds supermajority of city voters, Proposition A will authorize the issue of up to $535 million in general obligation bonds to pay for refurbishing of emergency infrastructure such as the city’s unique firefighting water system, police and fire stations, and other disaster response facilities as well as the Municipal Transportation Authority’s bus facility at Potrero Yard. Property taxes could increase to pay for the bonds, and landlords of rent- controlled housing would be allowed to pass up to half the cost of any property tax hike on to tenants.
Two controversies surrounding the bonds have been seized upon by measure opponents, including the Coalition on San Francisco Neighborhoods, the citywide umbrella group for many neighborhood groups around the city. One issue is the designation of the Potrero Yard as a beneficiary of bond funds, and another is opposition to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s proposed Westside Potable Emergency Firefighting Water System Project, a reinforced high-pressure water line that will augment both city firefighting and drinking water resources serving Westside neighborhoods.
On March 26, the San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously rejected an appeal of a mitigated negative declaration in lieu of a full Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act for the water system proposal from the Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee, a Westside neighborhood group that contended the project would more expensive and environmentally problematic compared to a smaller-scale augmentation of the existing Auxiliary Water Supply System.
The ballot includes financing for emergency infrastructure, stricter term limits for certain elected officials, and two opposing plans to revise business taxes.
Measure B: Augmenting term limits
Proposition B would amend the City Charter and change the existing term limits for the mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors to a lifetime total of two terms, instead of the current limit of two consecutive four-year terms. It would eliminate a loophole that some say was exploited by progressives when former Supervisor Aaron Peskin ran and won two more terms, for a total of four, after a hiatus.
Predictably, support for Proposition B has fallen along partisan lines. Among those who have filed ballot arguments in favor is newly appointed District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong, who says that “the same politicians have been recycled through different offices, using their money, name recognition, and campaign infrastructure to remain in power.” On the other side, former United Educators of San Francisco and City College Trustee Susan Solomon, along with a whole raft of mainly progressive activists and former elected officials (including former Mayor Willie Brown, a notable exception) are proffering an argument against the charter amendment.
Measures C and D: The business tax brouhaha
Proposition C was placed on the ballot with the support of business groups as a response to Proposition D, which is supported by a coalition of labor unions and progressive activists. Hence, it may be helpful to discuss Measure D first.
Back in 2020, city voters approved a gross receipts surtax of between 0.1 and 0.6 percent on certain businesses where the highest paid executive earns more than 100 times the median local employee. The tax became effective in 2022, but was modified in 2024 to lower the rates and make some exemptions. The new tax brought in $206 million in revenue in 2023, but critics point out that it also makes the city more dependent on a smaller cohort of companies where revenue can become volatile as companies leave the city or devise other ways to compensate their bosses.
Proposition D seeks to hike rates again, from 0.129 percent to as high as 1.121 percent. Businesses that pay tax based on payroll could end up paying a surtax as high as 4.47 percent.
Arguments put forward by Proposition D proponents appeal to both popular policy and politics: the revenue can address projected city budget deficits and federal funding cuts, and also be politically punitive toward the tech-driven donor class seen as supporting Donald Trump and his administration.
“These corporations, which profited enormously from Trump’s tax breaks, can afford to chip in a little and help the rest of us,” Vincent Pan, the co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, tells voters in a paid argument in favor of Proposition D. Meanwhile, Mary Jung, a former local Democratic party chief, tells voters, “our city services rely on a stable and growing tax base. When we enact taxes that drive the city’s largest employers to relocate their headquarters, we aren’t just losing revenue from executives, we are losing the secondary jobs,” in an opposing argument.
Proposition C occupies the same business tax domain, but drives it in the opposite direction from Proposition D. It would exempt most businesses earning up to $7.5 million in gross receipts from the Gross Receipts Tax and the Overpaid CEO Tax. However, it would also bring forward the scheduled increase in the tax by one year, to 2027.
The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and AdvanceSF, a group representing the city’s largest employers, are taking the lead in supporting Prop C and opposing Prop D. They will face off against labor unions and advocacy groups like the Service Employees International Union Locals 2015 and 1021, along with the San Francisco Labor Council, in the contest over the two measures. Meanwhile, Mayor Daniel Lurie opposes both plans.
Watch The Voice for future coverage of these measures as election day gets closer, including our take-to-the-polls voter guide.
