Twelve local measures are set to appear on the November ballot in San Francisco, measures which have just been lettered from A to L.  The full rundown and summaries from the Department of Elections or past SocketSite coverage:

A – $500 Million Transportation and Road Improvement Bond

B – Population-Based Adjustment for the City’s Transportation Fund

C – Extension of Children’s and Public Education Funds; Split of Rainy Day Reserve

D – Retiree Health Care Benefits for Former Redevelopment Agency Employees

E – Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Sales in San Francisco

F – Height Limit Increase for Pier 70 to Allow for Redevelopment Plans

G – “Anti-Speculation” Tax on Transfers of Residential Property Within Five Years of Purchase

H – Measure to Block Approved Beach Chalet Athletic Fields Renovation and Turf in Golden Gate Park

I – Counter-Measure To Allow Turf and Beach Chalet Athletic Fields Renovation To Proceed

J – Minimum Wage Increase to $12.25 Per Hour in San Francisco

K – Declaration of San Francisco’s Affordable Housing Goals

L – Declaration of Pro-Car Transportation Priorities in San Francisco

And while the proposed measure to restrict Airbnb’s operations in San Francisco was withdrawn from the November ballot, it remains in the queue for a future election should the legislative process not meet the needs of its backers.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by SFCitizen

    That’s easy. No. No. No. All are NO.

    • Posted by oscar

      Yes on F and I, maybe to L, no to everything else.

  2. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    No on H and L, yes on all the rest except maybe G. Still on the fence on that one. Guess I don’t know how many people are affected by D, but it can’t be too many, so I still need to do some research there.

    • Posted by Conifer

      NVJ, please provide us with the official Peskin People’s Party (PPP) voting card. We need advice on how to create the perfect worker’s paradise right here in Bay city, free of dirty cars and free of need to make decisions for ourselves. Would you be our benevolent leader?

    • Posted by Anon

      you are against the turf fields that have been vetted time and time again? you’re wrong.

    • Posted by anon2

      What exactly is so wrong with speculating/flipping that you’d want to punitively tax it??

      There are most certainly some things that some speculators do which harm regular buyers such as that situation a few years back where some were colluding to rig foreclosure auctions, but those behaviors are already clearly illegal.

      Why impose a punitive tax on those doing honest work?

    • Posted by NoeValleyJim

      Tell us how you are going to vote Conifer and we will see who is more close to the middle of the road mainstream San Francisco voter after the election in November shall we?

      I am voting no on H, not yes on H, Anon. This means I am in favor of the turf fields. You are clueless as usual.

      I believe that speculation drives up the cost of things. This is not really controversial, there is a metric ton of economic research supporting this. One of the ways to reduce volatility in a market is to tax trading, so that it trades less frequently. I think there is a real harmed caused by a volatile housing market, even though it benefits me personally. It really disrupts people’s lives to no real society-wide economic benefit.

      However, I do think that people who buy small homes, blow them out and resell them are doing useful economic work and should be encouraged.

      So I am still on the fence. I will have to read the initiative myself and do some more homework. I will probably vote yes on it though.

      • Posted by Anon

        @ Noe Valley Jim, misread by me. mea culpa.

      • Posted by parklife

        “I will probably vote yes on it though”

        So you are in favor of taxing small property owners at punitive levels for no other reason than their personal life changes required the sale of their property? Is that right? There will be many owners of small (2-4 unit buildings) that will need to sell their properties for whatever reason (divorce, sickness, job loss/transfer) who will be taxed at exorbitant rates if this proposition passes. I’m hopeful (but not confident) that the voters of SF can see that this is a terrible proposal that does nothing to solve the “housing crisis”.

  3. Posted by anon

    The opposition to the plastic fields comes especially because that scheme includes a large increase in asphalt paved parking areas within the park.

    • Posted by Anon

      technically, sure. but then when you consider that what the plan truly calls for is paving over what’s already a poorly maintained dirt parking lot? that is not a valid argument.

      • Posted by Anon

        Go on one of the opposition websites…the new parking lots require EXTENSIVE removal of large mature trees, as well as other shrubs. The new design almost completely removes the existing mature trees on the west side as well. There is no need for more parking lots within the park.

        • Posted by Anon

          It’s not more parking lots. It’s paving an existing one. And the removal of some shrubs and trees was already vetted in the EIR.

        • Posted by Just Another Dad

          This is not true. Check your facts. The tree removal plan and replanting plan are both online. Long story short, 17 trees and a bunch of shrubs will be replaced by 200 trees and more than 1,000 plants and shrubs hand picked by Rec/Park staff for their ability to thrive so close to the beach (which many plants/trees cannot) and with the modest maintenance afforded to the Park. This has been documented in an EIR, at the Coastal Commission, and in numerous public meetings. If you are really relying on the opposition’s websites for your “facts” be sure to wear your tin foil hat for full effect.

          • Posted by Anon

            well done, Just Another Dad. I am so sick and tired of these blatant liars trying to ruin this.

          • Posted by jill

            thanks for the facts “just another dad”. i really cant understand why anyone is against the turf. is it just uneducated people?

  4. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    95% of the time, I vote “no” on any ballot initiative because of the fatal flaw in the process – they are presented as take it or leave it, warts and all. And there is nearly always some absurdly bad detail stuck into an initiative.

    This year is no different. I agree in principle with a few of these (esp. A, B, J), but they all have something nonsensical. And I understand that laws drafted by an elected legislature also include all sorts of silly provisions as a trade-off for passage, and that one cannot always make the perfect the enemy of the good, but I can’t stand that there is no room for any debate on the precise measure, and I won’t vote for something with some asinine component. I’m voting No on all of these for that reason.

  5. Posted by blabla

    Ha ha… you are all going to vote no on F out of principle? Is that because the so-called NIMBY’s on Potrero Hill and in Dogpatch are supporting it?

  6. Posted by woolie

    I can’t vote in San Francisco, but I’d vote yes on A, B, F, J, definitely no on L, E, G, and no strong opinions on the remainder.

  7. Posted by Eric Smith

    Definitely voting YES on L. Sick and tired of the SFMTA’s backwards transportation planning.

  8. Posted by frog

    I’m embarrassed to be voting on most of these. They are all insane.

    A few years ago there was some measure about money and horses in Golden Gate park. I talked to a friend about it and we were very conflicted because it seemed like a good discussion for a vet and the treasurer – not a general vote. We didn’t know there were horses Golden Gate park, but once we found out, we wanted them to be fed and housed. But we have no idea what that requires or how much money is appropriate.

    The amount of research I would have to do to feel informed on any of these issues is just crazy and these propositions are a terrible joke.

  9. Posted by jill

    yes on e,f,i, l. i would certainly vote yes on “a” if the main component was a subway. however, as it is, its just a waste of $500M

    • Posted by ess

      Well since Ed Lee is apparently incapable of doing even the job he had before this one, it’s up to the people to fix the stupid potholes. Seriously, that guy must hate the future.

  10. Posted by jill

    if we got rid of this ballot crap, people might actually put more time into vetting political candidates.

  11. Posted by BTinSF

    They have jack hammered and replaced the sidewalk outside mu home twice in the last 5 years. If this passes, they’ll do it again so you can be sure I’ll vote “no”.

    • Posted by ess

      Sanchez between Clipper and 28th gets torn up in some way just about every 6months for the past 5+ years.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *