November 3, 2010
The Day After: November 2 Real Estate Related Election Results
With 100% of the San Francisco precincts reporting, but not including vote-by-mail or provisional ballots, it would appear that San Francisco Measure A (Earthquake Retrofit Bond) failed, while Measure L (Sit/Lie Ordinance) and Measure N (increases the transfer tax rate for real property valued at $5 million and above) have passed.
Measure A – Failed* (64.22% voted Yes in San Francisco, 35.78% voted No)
Measure L – Passed (53.33% voted Yes in San Francisco, 46.67% voted No)
Measure N – Passed (58.66% voted Yes in San Francisco, 41.34% voted No)
Our thanks to those who voted, whichever way you did.
As an aside, while Proposition 19 which would have legalized marijuana under California law has failed with 53.7% of California voters voting against (based on 97% of precincts reporting), in San Francisco 65.2% of voters voted for the legalization.
*NOTE: Measure A required a 66⅔% (plus 1) yes vote to pass.
First Published: November 3, 2010 8:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I think the earthquake bond required a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority.
[Editor’s Note: Since corrected, cheers.]
Posted by: nb at November 3, 2010 8:46 AM
2/3 needed on A
says they all passed
then it says that it failed - I assume the second mention was a correction/is now correct?
regardless, local election coverage was woefully pathetic
all politics are local and yet the chron spends its time on a Delaware senate election...
Posted by: polip at November 3, 2010 9:02 AM
Prop 26 passed, which expands the 2/3 voting requirement to additional categories of taxes and fees, and it is retroactive to 1/1/2010. Anyone have any insight into whether this will apply to new transfer taxes like Measure N? I can't tell from the face of things. State law obviously trumps a local measure.
Posted by: A.T. at November 3, 2010 9:21 AM
Maybe the best news of all: Chris Daly's chosen successor James Keys lost badly in district 6 with only 5% of the vote at 556 votes or the equivalent of one Tenderloin SRO hotel.
Posted by: daly's ghost at November 3, 2010 10:08 AM
Finally, Daly's hens (or pigeons?) are coming home to roost.
Posted by: marco at November 3, 2010 11:03 AM
The SF Chronicle is stating that Prop A requires 55% vote
Posted by: Name at November 3, 2010 11:08 AM
Also, Prop N requires 2/3 vote and was defeated.
[Editor's Note: "This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass."]
Posted by: Name at November 3, 2010 11:11 AM
According to the Chronicle it is 2/3:
Posted by: Name at November 3, 2010 11:26 AM
While I was pleased that Prop. 19 failed to pass, San Franciscans who voted for it and want to go on recreationally smoking pot with impunity have nothing to worry about since Schwarzenegger already signed SB 1449, Mark Leno's bill to reduce the categorization of simple possession of an ounce or less from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
So you can still go ahead and smoke a joint on the air without fear if that's what floats your boat.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at November 3, 2010 11:34 AM
I'll take what the SFgov elections site says over the chronicle.
Posted by: diemos at November 3, 2010 11:34 AM
The passage of Prop L (sit-lie) is an interesting comment on how thinking has changed about dealing with street people. A similar proposition was defeated when Jordan was mayor, and I suspect the passage of time has resulted in the electorate becoming increasingly fed up with squalor on the streets. The question now is whether a new, "progressive" mayor will attempt to interfere with implementation of Prop L. Time will tell.
Posted by: zzzzzzz at November 3, 2010 11:42 AM
Brahma: Do infractions show up on background checks? And really, none of this prevents the practice of local law enforcement thinking state law is too lenient, so they investigate and turn people over for federal charges instead of local ones.
Posted by: EH at November 3, 2010 11:43 AM
sfgov and the chron may both be right. See my note above about prop 26. It may be the case that it was 50+% before the passage of prop 26 but since the passage it is a 2/3 requirement. Dunno for sure.
Posted by: A.T. at November 3, 2010 11:47 AM
I thought all tax increase measures require 2/3 approval according to prop 13. How could N not require it?
Posted by: lyqwyd at November 3, 2010 12:09 PM
As a sidenote, anyone seen stats on turnout %? Curious both here in SF as well as state-wide.
Posted by: Legacy Dude at November 3, 2010 12:23 PM
Turnout was around half of registered voters which is roughly double the number who voted in the last election.
The pensions issue will be back later with a vengeance. Almost everything else is minor compared to that. The habit of partying hard and then crashing must be hard to break.
Posted by: Mole Man at November 3, 2010 2:10 PM
"which is roughly double the number who voted in the last election." Huh? I'm not sure you have your numbers right here.
Posted by: R at November 3, 2010 3:39 PM