Ballot Notes

What it does

Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing: $10 billion repaid from the General Fund and $1.25 billion for CalVet veterans' home loans, repaid by the veterans' loan payments ¹.

Yes

The state may borrow the $11.25B.

No

The state does not borrow the money ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: General Fund cost of $500 million to $600 million a year for about 25 years (about 0.25% of the General Fund budget). Total cost is about 15% more than paying up front, inflation-adjusted. The veterans portion has no direct state cost. Funds would subsidize up to 40,000 rental units, about 2,500 farmworker units and 1,200 student beds, and help up to 40,000 households buy or repair homes ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: Gov. Newsom, California Democratic Party, California Apartment Association, AFL-CIO California ²; ballot-argument signers California Federation of Teachers, US Vets, Self-Help for the Elderly; Habitat for Humanity California, Housing California, California Housing Consortium ¹. The Legislature passed it 29-2 (Senate) and 61-7 (Assembly) ¹. Oppose: Some Republican legislators ². No ballot argument against was submitted ¹.

Arguments

For:

• Over half of renters spend more than 30% of income on rent; the bond funds tens of thousands of subsidized homes ¹.
• No new taxes; it can unlock federal matching funds ¹.

Against:

• Critics say the "veterans" framing is misleading, since veterans loans are $1.25B of $11.25B ¹².
• Borrowing adds interest (about 15% over paying up front) and $500-600M a year in General Fund payments for 25 years ¹.
• It does not address why housing is costly to build ².

What it does

Raises the cap on the state's rainy day fund (Budget Stabilization Account) from 10% to 20% of General Fund taxes and requires larger deposits when capital-gains revenue is unusually high. Extra debt payments (pensions, retiree health) that the Constitution requires through 2030 would run through 2040 and could also go to school payments, repaying other state funds and certain federal loans. Deposits would not count toward the state appropriations limit until withdrawn ¹.

Yes

These rules apply.

No

Current rules stay ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO gives no dollar figure: state reserves would be higher, making budget-balancing somewhat easier in downturns, and the state might make more extra debt payments. For context, the state has about $20 billion in other reserves ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: Gov. Newsom, Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel, California Professional Firefighters, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, former Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, California Hospital Association, California Primary Care Association ¹. The Legislature passed it 29-2 (Senate) and 59-8 (Assembly) ¹. Oppose: Assemblymember David Tangipa, Sen. Steven Choi, Carl DeMaio (Reform California), Transparency Foundation ¹.

Arguments

For:

• Budgets swung from a $100B surplus to a $50B deficit in a few years; a bigger cushion is needed. Supporters say LAO has recommended saving more ¹.
• Forces more of revenue windfalls to be banked rather than committed to ongoing spending ¹.

Against:

• Deposits would not count toward the 1978 spending limit, making taxpayer rebates for excess revenue less likely ¹.
• Opponents call it a "slush fund": it adds no dedicated money for schools, health or safety ¹.
• Supporters also voted to suspend over $5B in required deposits ¹.

What it does

Makes permanent the 2012 voter-approved (Prop 30, extended by Prop 55) higher income tax rates on high earners, which are otherwise set to expire. The rates (10.3% to 12.3%) apply to income above about $371,000 for single filers and $742,000 for joint filers; the top 2% of taxpayers pay them. Revenue goes 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges ¹.

Yes

The higher rates become permanent.

No

They expire after 2030 ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue, varying with the stock market. Roughly 40% goes to schools and community colleges; the rest goes to health care, reserves and other programs ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California State PTA, California Nurses Association, California School Employees Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California ¹. As of a Sept. 24 filing, Yes on 3 had raised about $46.8M, including $33.3M from CTA, $10M from the NEA, $1.75M from CFT and $1.5M from SEIU ². Oppose: California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce ¹. No on 3 had reported $5,500 as of the same filing ².

Arguments

For:

• Not a new tax: keeps rates the top 2% have paid for about 15 years; expiry would cut taxes for the wealthy and risk billions in school and health cuts ¹.

Against:

• Turns a "temporary" tax into a permanent one, which opponents call the largest permanent state income tax increase in California history ¹.
• Raises California's cost of living; they say the state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem ¹.
• Revenue is volatile and tied to the stock market (LAO range $5-15B) ¹.

What it does

Repeals the state law banning public funds for political campaigns (charter cities such as San Francisco and Oakland are exempt), letting state and local governments create public campaign financing programs. It does not create a program itself. Programs could not use money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety; candidates must show broad support and accept spending limits. It also triples the maximum fine for foreign campaign contributions ¹.

Yes

Programs are allowed.

No

The ban stays, except in charter cities that opt in ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: ongoing state cost of a few hundred thousand dollars a year for the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to give guidance. Costs of any future program could be significant but depend on future decisions ¹. Supporters claim as little as $1 per resident per year ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: Sen. Tom Umberg (author), League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association, California Common Cause, Consumer Watchdog, and others ¹. Legislature vote: 29-8 Senate, 59-20 Assembly ¹. Oppose: California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and former FPPC chair Dan Schnur ¹.

Arguments

For:

• Over $1 billion has been spent on state candidate races since 2020; small-donor matching helps candidates compete without wealthy donors ¹.
• It is only an option; each government chooses whether to adopt a program. Supporters cite 14 states and 26 localities with similar systems ¹.

Against:

• Opponents say it has no limit on the number of candidates or the amount of public money, and does not bar special-interest money ¹.
• Could divert taxpayer money from schools, safety and health; qualifying criteria are left to future laws ¹.

What it does

Removes the second question (who replaces the official) from recall elections for state officers; voters would only decide whether to remove. A recalled legislator would be replaced by special election, and other officers by gubernatorial appointment under existing vacancy rules. If a Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor takes over: until voters elect a new Governor at a future statewide election if the recall comes early in the term, or for the rest of the term if later. A recalled officer may run in a special election ¹.

Yes

Recalls drop the replacement question.

No

Voters keep choosing a replacement on the same ballot ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: net effect unknown, possibly savings or costs of millions of dollars per recall election, depending on the office recalled and how often recalls occur. A standalone special election to fill a seat would cost millions; a shorter ballot would save millions. Any net effect is under 0.1% of the General Fund budget ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, former FPPC chair Dan Schnur (ballot argument signers) ¹. Legislature vote on SCA 1: 32-8 Senate, 59-17 Assembly ¹. Oppose: Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, Assemblymember Joe Patterson (ballot argument signers) ¹.

Arguments

For:

• A replacement can win with far less than 50%; the leading 2021 replacement would have had about 28% of recall voters ¹.
• The 2021 recall cost over $200 million and reconfirmed the result ¹.
• Reduces use of recalls to overturn regular elections ¹.

Against:

• Takes away voters' power to choose a successor; appointment or special elections would fill seats ¹.
• Seats could sit vacant until a costly special election ¹.
• Opponents say the current system has worked for 100 years ¹.

What it does

Lets the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund a "middle-class homeownership loan" covering up to 17% of the price of a newly built home (buyer puts down at least 3%). Buyers must be California residents for a year, occupy the home, and earn no more than twice the area median income. Home prices are capped at roughly $1 million to $1.5 million, depending on county. Developers can opt into higher labor standards in exchange for different construction-defect rules ¹.

Yes

The state creates the homebuyer loan program.

No

No program is created ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: no direct state or local costs, because homebuyers' payments repay the bonds. Unknowns include investor demand, how the loans compare with other down payment aid, and whether the program increases construction and homebuying ¹. CalMatters adds that private lenders, not taxpayers, would bear default losses ².

Supporters / opponents

Support: California Democratic Party, Xavier Becerra, California Association of Realtors, California Conference of Carpenters, SEIU, CalHFA board member Fiona Ma, and State Controller Malia Cohen (quoted) ¹². It was placed on the ballot by a coalition of real estate interests and labor unions ². Oppose: Reform California, League of Women Voters of California ². No ballot argument against was filed ¹.

Arguments

For:

• A 20% down payment is out of reach for most middle-class buyers; the median home price is above $930,000 ¹².
• Supporters say it carries no taxpayer cost, since bond investors fund the loans ¹.

Against:

• The state should not be involved in the mortgage lending market ².
• It does not address the underlying causes of high housing costs and could push buyers into more debt ².

What it does

Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, at least $4.2 billion of it for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. Half goes to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute; half to competitive grants for public and nonprofit institutions. Treatments developed with the money must generally be sold in California at a 20% discount, and 10% of revenue from discoveries goes to the state until the bond is repaid.

Yes

The state may borrow the money.

No

The state does not borrow the money ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: state cost of $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bond (total cost about 10% more than paying up front). The state could recover part or all of this if research generates revenue, but timing is uncertain and could take decades ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: Gary Michelson (placed it on the ballot), American Association of Immunologists, California Democratic Party, City of Hope, Alzheimer's Association ¹². CalMatters reported in July that Michelson and his Michelson Center gave at least $8.2 million to the Yes campaign and Meyer Luskin at least $5 million ³. KQED reported on Oct. 2 that Yes had raised about $27 million and No had raised nothing ⁴. Oppose: No on 38 (led by California Health Policy Strategies), League of Women Voters, Orange County Register editorial board, Stanford's Robert Kaplan ².

Arguments

For:

• Immune-system research could yield cures and offset federal research cuts ¹.
• Supporters say it is designed to pay for itself, with audits and a patient discount ¹.

Against:

• It commits taxpayers to decades of bond debt for one field; priorities should go through the normal budget process ¹.
• Half the money goes to one institute; CalMatters found the criteria very likely exclude all but the one Michelson co-founded ³⁴.

What it does

Constitutional amendment requiring voters to show government-issued ID to vote in person. Mail voters must designate a government-issued ID in their registration and write its last four digits on the ballot envelope; ballots that do not match are invalidated. Election officials must make "best efforts" to verify citizenship and report county percentages yearly. The state must offer a free voter ID card; the Legislature must pass further implementing laws ¹.

Yes

These requirements apply.

No

Identity is verified as now, by signature on mail ballots ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: state and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars per year (under 0.25% of the General Fund budget), depending on future decisions. Small savings from fewer registered voters would not exceed the costs ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: California Republican Party, Reform California, Richard Uihlein, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ¹². NBC reported on Oct. 7 that Yes had raised over $28 million, including $17 million from Uihlein, over $3 million in loans from Steven Bray, and $250,000 each from the Winklevoss twins ³. Oppose: ACLU, Common Cause, League of Women Voters, California Democratic Party, Sen. Alex Padilla ¹². Per the same report: state Democratic Party nearly $5.5 million, Graton Rancheria tribe $2 million, Patty Quillin and Quinn Delaney $1.5 million each, SEIU $1 million ³.

Arguments

For:

• Would increase trust in elections; most states already require some ID ¹².
• Supporters cite broad bipartisan support and 100,000+ ballots rejected for signature mismatch last election ¹.

Against:

• Adds barriers that could block eligible voters, especially people with disabilities, low-income voters and those who recently moved ¹².
• Opponents cite identity-theft risk and costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars ¹.

What it does

A legislative constitutional amendment (ACA 22). Local special taxes (dedicated to a specific purpose) proposed by a city council or board already need two-thirds voter approval, but court rulings let special taxes put on the ballot by voter signatures pass with a simple majority. Starting January 1, 2027, any new, increased or extended local special tax proposed by voters would need two-thirds ¹.

Yes

Voter-proposed local special taxes need two-thirds.

No

They can keep passing with a majority ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: local government tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be. The actual impact is unknown and depends on future decisions by local governments and voters. No dollar estimate ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Jon Coupal), California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce ¹². Supporters have raised almost $15 million, nearly $10 million of it from the California Business Roundtable PAC ². Oppose: local government officials, labor unions, affordable housing advocates, California Professional Firefighters ². Opponents have raised about $6 million; the largest gift is $1.5 million from an SEIU California-affiliated PAC ². Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who wrote the compromise language, says she is "adamantly opposed" ². Polling: a September PPIC survey found 51% of likely voters opposed and 43% in support ². Legislature vote: 35-1 Senate, 68-2 Assembly ¹.

Arguments

For:

• Closes court-created loopholes in the Prop 13 two-thirds rule, so all special taxes face the same standard ¹.
• Supporters say local governments imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in a decade, including real estate transfer taxes ¹.

Against:

• Lets 33.4% of voters block a tax that nearly 67% want, which opponents call minority rule ¹.
• Could make it harder to fund firefighting, schools, health care and housing locally ¹².

What it does

An initiative statute requiring private nonprofit safety-net clinics to spend at least 90% of total revenue on program services; administrative and other costs are limited to 10%. Clinics now average about 80%. A clinic that falls short pays a penalty equal to the spending needed to reach 90%, refundable if it complies within five years. The Attorney General defines qualifying expenses, and clinics can seek temporary waivers ¹.

Yes

The 90% requirement applies.

No

Clinics keep current spending rules ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: state enforcement costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees on affected clinics. Other state and local costs are uncertain, depending on the Attorney General's definitions and whether clinics comply or close; more Medi-Cal services could raise state costs ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (sponsor) ¹². The Yes committee had reported $10.8 million as of Oct. 6 ³; CalMatters puts the union's total at about $17 million, mainly union funds ⁴. Oppose: California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Hospital Association, California Democratic Party ². The main No committee had reported $21.6 million as of Oct. 6 ³; CalMatters puts opponents at about $37.6 million ⁴. In September the primary care association and clinics sued the union under anti-racketeering law; the union calls the claims false ⁴.

Arguments

For:

• Clinics should spend more on patient care and less on executive pay and overhead ¹.

Against:

• A study commissioned by the primary care association projects clinics would pay $1.7 billion in penalties in the first year, with nearly half of clinics at risk of closing; this is an opponent-commissioned figure, not LAO's ¹⁴.
• Clinics are already regulated and audited; LAO notes some clinics might close instead of complying ¹.

What it does

An initiative statute sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce that creates optional faster California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures for "essential" projects: housing, water systems, clean energy (not nuclear), health facilities, fire and police stations, wildfire risk reduction, broadband, education facilities and transportation (not high-speed rail). It tightens review deadlines (365 business days for an environmental impact report), caps public comment periods, lets applicants offer one alternative, limits tribal consultation to federally recognized tribes and narrows court review ¹.

Yes

Eligible projects can use these procedures.

No

Existing procedures continue ¹.

Fiscal impact

LAO: initial state and local costs likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially over $100 million, partly covered by fees. Longer-term effects are uncertain, positive or negative, and could be larger: faster projects could cut costs and raise tax revenue, while worse environmental outcomes could raise costs ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: California Chamber of Commerce, California Republican Party, L.A. County BizFed, California Hospital Association ²; California LULAC, NAACP California/Hawaii, California Taxpayers Association ¹. Supporting committees had reported $40.1 million through Oct. 6 ³. Oppose: California Democratic Party, Sierra Club California, California Labor Federation, Physicians for Social Responsibility-LA, Communities for a Better Environment ²; Coalition for Clean Air, Clean Water Action, California Environmental Voters ¹. Opposing committees had reported $18.9 million through Oct. 6 ³.

Arguments

For:

• CEQA delays and lawsuits raise housing and infrastructure costs; enforceable deadlines would speed essential projects ¹.
• Applicants may choose the new process, and agencies still review and can deny projects ¹.

Against:

• Narrows the public's and courts' tools to challenge harmful projects, and the "essential" definition is broad ¹².
• Cuts public comment and tribal consultation; opponents say utilities and corporate PACs fund it ¹.

What it does

Amends the Charter to authorize a Municipal Finance Corporation (MFC), a nonprofit with its own board and an oversight commission, which could later seek state and federal approval to become a Public Bank ¹². It does not require the City to create either; the Treasurer-Tax Collector must find adequate funding first ¹. The Board placed it on the ballot July 7, 2026, by 9-2 (No: Sherrill, Wong); Sup. Chen wrote the proponent argument ³⁴. Needs 50%+1 ³.

Yes

The City may set up a municipal finance corporation and, later, a public bank.

No

Leaves the Charter unchanged.

Fiscal impact

Controller (amended, Aug 20): no direct impact, since creation is optional. If pursued, costs are "significant," about $310M-$460M over eight years per 2023 working-group estimates, including roughly $4M/yr setup, $90M over the first three years of MFC capitalization and $220M over years 4-8 for a bank. Costs may be "significantly higher or lower," and the City would have limited control over outcomes ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: Sups. Chen, Mahmood, Melgar, Mandelman, Fielder, Walton; SF Labor Council, SF Foundation, SF Public Bank Coalition, SF Tenants Union ⁵; State Controller Malia Cohen, Assemblymember Haney ⁶. LWV-SF ⁷, SF Democratic Party ⁸, SF Green Party ⁹. Oppose: "San Franciscans for Fiscal Responsibility" (Leslie Huang et al.) ¹⁰; SPUR ¹¹; GrowSF ¹²; SF GOP ¹³; SF Chamber ¹⁴.

Arguments

For:

• Uses a time-limited state law to give the City a tool for affordable housing, small business and infrastructure lending, without a new tax ⁵.
• Independent board of professional bankers and spread-out oversight appointments limit political influence ⁶.

Against:

• Creates a new City-linked entity with no dedicated funding, while the working group estimated hundreds of millions would be needed ¹⁰¹.
• Existing nonprofit lenders and credit unions already do this; the bank would serve risky clients and expose taxpayers ¹⁰¹².

What it does

Amends the Charter to renew the Housing Trust Fund General Fund set-aside from 2043 to 2058 and speed its growth until the annual contribution reaches $125M, likely FY2034-35. Funds may go to affordable rental/ownership housing, down-payment loans and housing-related infrastructure. The Mayor or Board may freeze contributions if the projected deficit exceeds $250M, or cut up to 10% when Rainy Day Reserve use is authorized ¹. The Board placed it on the ballot July 14, 2026, 11-0 ². Needs 50%+1 ².

Yes

The Housing Trust Fund is renewed to 2058 with larger contributions.

No

Keeps current funding and the 2043 sunset.

Fiscal impact

Controller (Aug 10): "significant impact," approximately $6M additional General Fund cost starting FY2028-29, growing to about $60M a year by FY2034-35 (total $125M vs. about $65M under current law). Notes the measure does not comply with the City's non-binding policy limiting voter-adopted spending mandates, which total about $2B (30%) of roughly $7B in General Fund sources ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Support: Mayor Lurie, Sup. Melgar, Assemblymember Stefani, Housing Accelerator Fund and Chinatown CDC CEOs ³. SF Democratic Party ⁴, SPUR ⁵, LWV-SF ⁶, GrowSF ⁷, SF Chamber ⁸. Oppose: SF Republican Party ⁹¹⁰. SF Green Party: no consensus ¹¹.

Arguments

For:

• Renews San Francisco's main affordable-housing funding source and raises it as rents climb ³.
• Not a new tax; growth tied to City revenue, with deficit freeze/cut valves ³¹.

Against:

• Housing Trust Fund has underdelivered; per-unit costs are near $1M and the measure sets no unit targets ⁹.
• Raises homebuyer income cap to 200% of median and adds uses like social housing, spreading dollars thinner; locks in spending ⁹¹.

What it does

Voter-initiated ordinance (signatures certified July 23, 2026) ¹. Needs 50%+1 ¹.

Yes

Reopens the Upper Great Highway (Lincoln Way to Sloat) in Sunset Dunes Park to private cars from Monday 4am to Friday 6pm, keeping it a car-free park Friday 6pm to Monday 4am and on holidays; it would need a coastal development permit ²³.

No

Keeps the road a full-time car-free park, as set by 2024's Prop K (55%) ³.

Fiscal impact

Controller (Deputy Controller ChiaYu Ma, Aug 10 letter): would "significantly increase the cost of government" by about $9.8M one-time (mostly $8.8M for signals at 8 intersections) and about $500,000 to $1.9M per year, including $100,000 to $1.5M more for sand removal; park staffing (about $300,000/yr) would fall. Sloat signals could force a redesign of the Ocean Beach plaza; permit costs cannot be determined ².

Supporters / opponents

Yes: Supervisor Alan Wong ¹; Chinese American Democratic Club, SF Taxpayers Association, Richmond District Democratic Club ⁴; SF GOP ⁵.

No: Sen. Scott Wiener (official opponent) ¹; SF Democratic Party ⁶; GrowSF ⁷; SPUR ³; Sierra Club, SF League of Conservation Voters, Surfrider SF ⁴. Top No donor: Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman ($375K) ⁸.

Neutral/no position: SF Chamber ⁹; League of Women Voters SF ¹⁰; SF Green Party ¹¹.

Arguments

For:

• Closure lengthens trips and burdens Westside residents (work, school, medical) ⁸.
• Supporters cite rising Sunset traffic injuries and say reopening restores the weekday-road, weekend-park compromise ¹.

Against:

• The park drew 1.7 million visits in its first year, 53% on weekdays (Rec and Park, via LWVSF) ⁴.
• SPUR says reopening undoes the coastal-erosion and sea-level-rise plan for Ocean Beach ³.
• Voters kept the park in 2024; LWVSF cites up to $20M over five years ¹⁰.

What it does

Voter-initiated ordinance (proponent argument by SF DSA; signatures certified July 23, 2026) ¹. Halves the General Fund transfer tax on sales of $10M+ (5.5% to 2.75%; 6% to 3%) and adds a matching "House SF Tax" feeding a new fund for affordable housing: at least 60% production, 25% preservation or acquisition, 10% tenant stabilization, at most 5% administration. The Board could no longer cut the tax without voter approval ². Needs 50%+1 ¹.

Yes

Half the transfer tax on $10M+ sales goes to a dedicated housing fund.

No

Leaves revenue in the General Fund.

Fiscal impact

Controller (Greg Wagner, Aug 10 letter): a "moderate annual decrease of approximately $1 million" in City revenue from FY2027-28, but it shifts $120M per year out of the General Fund (about $119M to the new fund), which "would increase the City's projected General Fund deficit by $120 million annually" (already $741.7M in FY2028-29). It would be the City's 24th voter-mandated funding requirement; such mandates total about $2B, or 30%, of roughly $7B in General Fund sources ².

Supporters / opponents

Yes: SF DSA, Supervisor Jackie Fielder, PODER SF ³; SF Tenants Union, Small Business Forward, SEIU 1021 ⁴; League of Women Voters SF ⁵.

No: Mayor Daniel Lurie, SF YIMBY ³; SF Democratic Party ⁶; GrowSF ⁷; SPUR ⁸; SF Chamber ⁹; SF GOP ¹⁰; SF Taxpayers Association, SF Building Trades Council ⁴. SF Green Party: no consensus ¹¹.

Arguments

For:

• Dedicated funding for affordable and social housing without raising rates; harder to divert ³⁵.

Against:

• Locks in $120M/yr, cutting flexibility for parks, public safety and other services amid deficits ²⁴⁸.
• Requires no specific number of housing units built; the Mayor calls it an unaccountable fund, and backs Prop C instead ³⁴.

What it does

Ends the transfer-tax exemption for foreclosures and deeds in lieu (in place since 1984) for commercial properties, hotels and residential buildings of five or more units, taxing them on fair market value at the usual rates. Residential and mixed-use properties under five units stay partly exempt. Applies from March 1, 2027 ¹². The Board placed it on the ballot July 28, 2026, by 10-0 (Walton excused); needs 50%+1 ².

Yes

Foreclosures on large properties pay the transfer tax.

No

Foreclosures stay exempt.

Fiscal impact

Controller (Greg Wagner, Aug 10 letter): would "significantly increase" transfer tax revenue, averaging $100M to $150M annually over the first five years, but unpredictable and likely to change significantly year to year; near-term revenue highest, then declining significantly. It would have raised $3.2M in FY2021-22 but $232.5M in FY2025-26; some years may bring "next to no new tax revenue" ¹.

Supporters / opponents

Yes: Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (proponent argument) and the Board's other sponsors ²; Mayor Daniel Lurie ³; SF Democratic Party ⁴; GrowSF ⁵; SPUR ⁶; League of Women Voters SF ⁷; SF Green Party ⁸; SEIU 1021, SEIU 2015, Teamsters 665 ⁹.

No: SF Republican Party ¹⁰; SF Taxpayers Association (Quentin Kopp, official opponent) ²⁹. No position: SF Chamber ¹¹.

Arguments

For:

• The exemption was meant for struggling homeowners, not corporate lenders and investors buying defaulted loans ⁵⁹.
• Closes a loophole: a $61M sale of 350 California St. would owe over $3.6M ³.

Against:

• Taxing distress sales adds friction and could slow downtown recovery and liquidity ³.
• Lenders may "extend and pretend" or raise rates, making SF lending costlier ⁵⁹.
• Revenue is volatile, so unreliable for budgeting ¹.