Based on a tally of 221,151 votes, which now includes all 102,345 ballots cast at polling places along with 118,806 of a potential 320,207 vote-by-mail ballots which had been processed prior to the election, here are the preliminary results for the real estate related ballot measures we’re tracking:

Proposition A (Embarcadero Seawall Earthquake Safety Bond): 82% YES / 18% NO
Proposition C (Business Tax to Fund Homeless Services): 60% YES / 40% NO
Proposition 5 (Reduced Requirements for Transferring Property Tax Base): 26% YES / 74% NO in SF
Proposition 10 (Potential to Expand Rent Control): 52% YES / 48% NO in SF

And on a statewide basis with 96 percent of the state’s 24,312 precincts having reported:

Proposition 5 (Reduced Requirements for Transferring Property Tax Base): 42% YES / 58% NO
Proposition 10 (Potential to Expand Rent Control): 38% YES / 62% NO

UPDATE (11/9): With 252,845 votes having now been tallied in San Francisco, the updated margins are as follows with no changes on a statewide basis:

Proposition A (Embarcadero Seawall Earthquake Safety Bond): 82% YES / 18% NO
Proposition C (Business Tax to Fund Homeless Services): 60% YES / 40% NO
Proposition 5 (Reduced Requirements for Transferring Property Tax Base): 26% YES / 74% NO in SF
Proposition 10 (Potential to Expand Rent Control): 51% YES / 49% NO in SF

And with over 120,000 vote-by-mail/provisional ballots yet to be processed, we’re projecting the final turnout in San Francisco will be a new mid-term record and well over 70 percent.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: The results above have been updated to include all 102,345 ballots cast at polling places yesterday along with 118,806 of 320,207 potential vote-by-mail ballots and 96 percent of the state’s 24,312 precincts having reported.

  2. Posted by Frisco

    Interesting. The turnout map is basically an income map.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      Actually, that’s not quite true. There appear to be many high income areas in the Marina, South Beach and Mission Bay that have only middling turn out. It’s income AND political engagement (and whiteness).

      There have been two concentrations of high voter turnout in SF for decades: Pacific Heights/Presidio Heights/Sea Cliff (definitely the highest income area), but also Castro/Noe Valley/ Twin Peaks. That latter area didn’t have as high incomes historically (except for St. Francis Wood), but had lots of homeowners and politically engaged gays.

      There is plenty of money in SF, but much of it is new and transient, and that figures into the stats you see from the places those younger folks tend to live.

      • Posted by SocketSite

        In addition, keep in mind that the preliminary turnout map above doesn’t include over 200,000 potential vote-by-mail ballots that have yet to be counted or received (within three days of the election), including every vote-by-mail ballot which was hand delivered to a polling place yesterday.

      • Posted by Martin

        I’m surprised the slightly lower turnout in South Beach and Mission Bay. I wonder if that’s because condos there are more likely to be rented out to people who are not (or not yet) registered to vote. Sea Cliff / Presidio Heights / Pac Heights have more houses, and you’re not gonna get that much of a rental market there.

        • Posted by Joshua Goldstein

          I’d assume mail in ballots. A lot of people in the area ride Caltrain, which might make it hard to make it to the polls on time. That being said, I went to vote at around 10:45 am, and one of the poll workers was mentioning the rather high turnout.

          • Posted by Amewsed

            Been voting absentee for decades now. It brings convenience especially for those who travel internationally during election day.

        • Posted by hajaxavier

          I think the metric is for registered voters, not eligible voters. I’ve lived in Rincon Hill since 2003. We’ve had poor turn out back then, we had poor turnout on tuesday. don’t think mail in ballots will improve my neighborhood’s metrics. Not sure what’s worse, eligible voters not registering or registered voters not voting.

      • Posted by Stop Driving

        Kind of quells any notion of oppression. Voting is a choice and, apparently, many people choose not to vote and also choose to blame their situations on the people who do vote.

  3. Posted by curmudgeon

    REALLY curious to see that Prop 10 failed even in SF. I knew it was going to crash to defeat statewide, but I was surprised about the city.

    • Posted by SF Dede

      Not surprised. People understand that long term rent control can exacerbate the problem it intends to solve. Perfect example is San Francisco itself. I suspect it is a mix of property rights people, housing development and construction people, and younger people who have a more critical dispassionate eye that have driven this result. Just a guess on my part.

  4. Posted by Sculpy

    Dept. of elections website currently has Prop 10 at 51.6% Yes in SF. (As of Wed. AM)

    • Posted by SocketSite

      That’s correct (and since updated above). The margin flipped from 53% NO based on the early vote-by-mail count to 52% YES after the election day votes were added but with a potential 200,000 vote-by-mail ballots yet to be counted and which could flip the local vote back around should the pattern for VBM ballots hold.

      • Posted by spencer

        when would we expect the mail in ballots?

        • Posted by SocketSite

          Expect the majority of vote-by-mail ballots to have been tallied and added to the counts above by this Friday.

  5. Posted by Notcom

    Are there really voters in GG Park ?? It would appear so, based on the shading, but since not the whole park is shaded I’ll assume it’s a case of “not coloring within the lines”.

  6. Posted by Johny

    Does the potential passing of Prop 10 in SF make a owning Condo a little less desirable and helps get TIC (tenancy in common) a little more equal footing? My reading of this proposition is that Condos and SFH are no subject to same rules that TICs have been?

  7. Posted by TheGuy

    It’s a state proposition so it doesn’t matter if SF’s vote tally is higher for Yes on 10. Prop 10 failed at the state level (by a massive margin) so Costa Hawkins will remain in place for now.

  8. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: With 252,845 votes having now been tallied in San Francisco, the updated margins are as follows:

    Proposition A (Embarcadero Seawall Earthquake Safety Bond): 82% YES / 18% NO
    Proposition C (Business Tax to Fund Homeless Services): 60% YES / 40% NO
    Proposition 5 (Reduced Requirements for Transferring Property Tax Base): 26% YES / 74% NO in SF
    Proposition 10 (Potential to Expand Rent Control): 51% YES / 49% NO in SF

    On a statewide basis with 100 percent of the state’s 24,312 precincts having reported:

    Proposition 5 (Reduced Requirements for Transferring Property Tax Base): 42% YES / 58% NO
    Proposition 10 (Potential to Expand Rent Control): 38% YES / 62% NO

    And with over 120,000 vote-by-mail/provisional ballots yet to be processed in San Francisco, we’re projecting the local turnout will be a new record for a mid-term election and well over 70 percent.

Add a Comment

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