iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on J. SPUR notes, "This measure generates up to $150 million annually to bolster the city’s General Fund at a time of fiscal distress...Closing this transfer tax loophole simplifies SF's tax code & makes the transfer tax fairer..." Prop J is a reasonable way to sustain important public services

SPUR's Recommendation
San Francisco is facing significant fiscal uncertainty and needs revenue to support basic municipal functions, programs, and services. The city has few ways to generate revenue without increasing the tax burden for working families and small businesses. Closing the foreclosure loophole for commercial and multi-family residential properties offers a way to increase revenue without harming individual homeowners or small landlords. If the city moves forward with plans to reduce transfer tax rates in the future, the additional revenue generated by this measure will be particularly important to avoid negative financial impacts.

Vote YES
https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/sf-prop-j-transfer-tax-foreclosures

100

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

No on I. Prop I raises no new funds. It just sets aside existing tax dollars (reducing funds available for other needs, like public health) at a time when the city is facing a $1.1 billion deficit. It gives the Supes no flexibility to change this, even in emergencies. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

SPUR's Recommendation
SPUR strongly supports expanding funding for affordable housing and appreciates the measure’s targeted exemptions for qualified housing projects. However, Prop. I would permanently dedicate a significant portion of General Fund revenue at a time when San Francisco faces a structural deficit exceeding $1 billion in just a few years. This diversion would reduce General Fund revenue available for core services, including fire, police, public health, and children's programs.

Prop. I would also remove the Board of Supervisors’ authority to adjust the transfer tax and the flexibility to respond to evolving housing needs. While Prop. I allows certain legislative amendments that further the purposes of the House SF Fund, the scope of the board’s amendment authority is unclear.

The transfer tax has been identified as a significant impediment to real estate investment and downtown recovery. Although this measure provides relief for some types of residential projects, commercial real estate projects would still face high transfer taxes. Weighing all these factors, we believe Prop. I could do more harm than good.

Vote NO

https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/sf-prop-i-transfer-tax-set-aside

100

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on H. “Prop. H would avoid catastrophic service cuts that would otherwise leave San Francisco without reliable and affordable transportation, stall downtown’s recovery, worsen traffic, air quality, and respiratory illness, and undermine housing production.” I agree! www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

Parcel Tax to Fund Public Muni Operations
Establishes a tiered parcel tax on commercial and residential properties for 15 years to avoid severe cuts to Muni public transit service as well as to enhance service.

SPUR's Recommendation
High-quality public transit is not optional for San Francisco. SPUR recognizes that Prop. H imposes a new tax on residents at a time when the cost of living is very high, and on commercial property owners as they begin to recover from the pandemic and the shift to remote work. But the tax structure is built on fairness, and San Francisco’s affordability and economy both need Muni to thrive.

Life will get much harder and more expensive in San Francisco and the region if Prop. H does not pass, especially for people with the fewest options: when transit service is cut, riders with disabilities, seniors, students, and low-income workers are hit first and hardest.

Downtown San Francisco, the city’s economy, and Muni are inextricably linked. When Muni is safe, clean, and convenient, downtown benefits. Reduced service would have the opposite effect. Cutting special event service could dampen the city’s ability to host marquee events. Traffic congestion — which has already surpassed pre-pandemic levels — would inevitably worsen, impeding return to office and broader economic growth.

Muni has made financial management a top priority and proven to be a good steward of public funds and responsive to customers. SPUR is confident the funding generated by Prop. H will be well-used. Everyone benefits from safer, less congested roads, cleaner air, and a healthy economy when Muni can provide high-quality service that is clean, safe, reliable, and affordable.

Vote YES

110

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

No on G. Sunset Dunes is a wonderful park, part of a key effort to protect neighborhoods from rising seas & coastal erosion. The last thing we should do is turn it back into a high-speed highway (that, when it still existed, was often closed by drifting sand & erosion). www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

Allowing Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park
Closes Sunset Dunes Park (formerly the Upper Great Highway) to recreational use during the work week, allowing cars Monday through Friday and recreational use on weekends and holidays.

SPUR's Recommendation
Prop. G would undo a successful city effort to protect neighborhoods from the threats of rising sea levels and coastal erosion and create more places for San Franciscans to recreate safely and connect with nature. It would delay the city’s plan for addressing climate impacts at a time when the effects of climate change are only increasing. SPUR supports policies that expand access to shared public amenities, encourage transportation options such as walking, biking, and transit, and proactively address sea level rise and coastal erosion. Prop. G would do the opposite.

Vote NO

110

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on F. This measure gives the mayor (the one elected official most voters can actually name) authority to select department heads and hold them accountable, and to restructure departments, while retaining important limits on the Mayor's power by exempting key oversight boards.

SPUR's Recommendation
Prop. F would adopt many recommendations SPUR made in recent charter analyses, including strengthening the authority of the mayor, as the city’s chief executive officer, to select department heads and hold them accountable for performance. It would remove charter limits on the mayor’s ability to structure the Mayor’s Office to manage a large and complex government. While the measure would give the mayor greater authority to reorganize charter departments and functions than SPUR envisioned, it would maintain important limits by allowing the Board of Supervisors to reject changes and exempting key independent oversight functions. Taken together, these changes would strengthen the mayor’s ability to serve as the city’s chief executive and voters’ ability to hold the mayor accountable for results.

Vote YES

100

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on E. SF’s complex purchasing system results in “lengthy approval timelines, overlapping reviews, and complex compliance requirements” that “increase administrative burdens for city staff and vendors, raise costs, & slow service delivery.” Prop E will help fix that. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

Changes to Executive Branch Management
Increases the mayor’s authority to directly appoint and remove most department heads, delegate supervision to deputy mayors or others, reorganize some functions among departments, and allow most appointed commissioners to be removed without cause by their appointing authorities.

SPUR's Recommendation
Prop. F would adopt many recommendations SPUR made in recent charter analyses, including strengthening the authority of the mayor, as the city’s chief executive officer, to select department heads and hold them accountable for performance. It would remove charter limits on the mayor’s ability to structure the Mayor’s Office to manage a large and complex government. While the measure would give the mayor greater authority to reorganize charter departments and functions than SPUR envisioned, it would maintain important limits by allowing the Board of Supervisors to reject changes and exempting key independent oversight functions. Taken together, these changes would strengthen the mayor’s ability to serve as the city’s chief executive and voters’ ability to hold the mayor accountable for results.

Vote YES

100

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on D. Our ballots are often packed with complex & confusing measures we have to decipher, because in SF (unlike other cities), they can be unilaterally placed on the ballot by the mayor or just 4 of 11 supervisors. This bypasses the standard legislative process that provides public review and...

Changes to Ballot Measure Process
Changes how local ballot measures qualify for the ballot by eliminating the ability of the mayor or just 4 of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors to place measures directly on the ballot, increasing signature requirements for voter initiatives, and allowing initiative proponents to withdraw measures before an election.

SPUR's Recommendation
The city’s current processes for placing measures on the ballot are more permissive than those elsewhere in California. By allowing a mayor alone or a minority of the Board of Supervisors to bypass standard public processes, these processes discourage elected leaders from building consensus to solve an identified problem and reduce opportunities for the public to participate in crafting legislative proposals. Prop. D raises barriers to qualifying voter signature initiatives, reducing grassroots and community groups' ability to qualify measures for the ballot at a time when the federal government and states, including California, are limiting voting rights and access. But the measure’s proposed signature thresholds would remain lower than those of most California cities. On balance, SPUR believes the measure's benefits outweigh its downsides and will lead to more effective policies and greater voter engagement.
See: https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/sf-prop-d-ballot-measure-process

200

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on C. SF needs a dedicated, stable funding source to build affordable housing and leverage federal funds. I usually oppose budget set-asides, but this measure includes “thoughtful fiscal controls by allowing temporary freezes or reductions during budget shortfalls.” www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

Contributions to the Housing Fund
Amends the city charter to increase and extend mandated annual contributions from the General Fund to the Housing Trust Fund for 15 years.

SPUR's Recommendation
Affordable housing is one of San Francisco's highest priorities, yet it consistently struggles to secure sufficient funding, and state and federal funding is increasingly unreliable. Historically, every dollar San Francisco invests locally in affordable housing has leveraged approximately $2 in additional funding from state and federal sources.9 Expanding affordable housing resources is even more critical as the city reduces its inclusionary requirements for market-rate projects to spur greater production. Although SPUR is cautious about charter-mandated General Fund set-asides because they reduce budget flexibility, Prop. C incorporates thoughtful fiscal controls by allowing temporary freezes or reductions during budget shortfalls. The urgent need for affordable housing funding, along with the measure’s fiscal safeguards and policy reforms to incentivize housing production, leads us to recommend support for Prop. C.

Vote YES

130

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

No on B. As a concept, public banks have real potential. Sadly, this proposition does a poor job of implementing it. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

Establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and a Public Bank
Establishes the purpose and governance structure of a municipal finance corporation and public bank to invest in affordable housing, small businesses, and climate sustainability and resilience.

SPUR's Recommendation
SPUR recognizes the significant potential of a public bank as a tool to advance San Francisco’s public priorities and expand the city’s capacity to invest in communities. A well-designed public bank could help address gaps in access to capital by financing affordable housing, small businesses, climate resilience, and environmental justice projects that traditional financial institutions may underserve. It could also keep more public resources circulating locally, provide flexible financing, and create revolving loan programs that allow public dollars to support multiple projects over time.

However, Prop. B’s proposed charter amendment does not reflect SPUR’s principles of good governance. The measure embeds detailed governance structures for the proposed Municipal Financial Corporation, future public bank, and multiple oversight commissions directly into the city charter, limiting future flexibility and adding complexity to a document that should focus on fundamental governmental structures. Importantly, establishing a public bank does not require these governance provisions to be in the charter. The city could pursue a public bank through ordinance, administrative action, and existing oversight processes. At a time when San Francisco is working to simplify its charter and improve governance, SPUR does not believe adding new charter-defined commissions and requirements is the right approach.

Vote NO

110

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on A. In 2024, voters passed Prop E, which created a “task force charged with developing recommendations to change the city’s unwieldy, duplicative system of commissions, appointed boards, & advisory bodies.” This sensible measure adopts many of its recommendations. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

SPUR's Recommendation
Voters have passed more than 100 amendments to the charter in the 30 years since its last comprehensive cleanup. Although the proposed measure contains many individual amendments, nearly all are technical, administrative, or housekeeping changes that simplify and modernize the charter without materially changing city policy. Consistent with SPUR’s Charter for Change recommendations, the measure would reduce unnecessary charter detail, modernize many outdated provisions, simplify the city’s commission and advisory board structure, and shift certain functions and bodies to the administrative code so they can be amended in the future without voter approval. While the final package avoids more controversial but needed reforms, it nonetheless reflects a worthwhile housekeeping package worthy of voters’ support.

Vote YES

110

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes on RTM. Passing RTM is essential to avoid severely slashing Bay Area transit – including, potentially, the complete collapse of BART. Without transit, traffic & pollution will increase, our economy will be hurt, and vulnerable groups will bear the brunt of the pain. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

SPUR's Recommendation
The potential collapse of transit services poses a serious threat to the many people who rely on transit to access jobs, medical appointments, and groceries. Vulnerable groups — including people with disabilities, older adults, students, and low-income workers — would bear the brunt of service cuts. SPUR believes maintaining reliable transit funding outweighs concerns about the regressive nature of a sales tax.

Transit is also vital for the region’s economy: half of all transit trips are work-related, and transit supports access to job opportunities. Robust service, especially in the evenings, supports small businesses and major events. Without it, traffic congestion will worsen, raising transportation costs for everyone and negatively impacting quality of life and the region’s economy.

BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit account for more than 80% of transit trips in the region. Cutting their services would not only exacerbate traffic but also significantly increase air and climate pollution, jeopardizing environmental progress.

Vote YES
https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ba-prop-rtm-regional-transit-sales-tax

2289

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026

My first reaction was to vote yes, to offset the damage done by Trump's cuts to social services. But sadly, Prop D is likely to do more harm than good. 2024's Prop M established a progressive business tax while reducing the burden on small businesses. We should leave it alone to work, instead of...

SPUR's Recommendation
Federal budget cuts could impact as many as 50,000 San Franciscans who rely on Medi-Cal and CalFresh to access health care and food. Developing sound fiscal strategies to mitigate those budget cuts is critical. However, Prop. D could undermine San Francisco’s ability to attract private investment at a time when the city’s economy is vulnerable. Some retailers, including grocery stores and pharmacies, have plans to close their San Francisco locations if the measure passes. Furthermore, Prop. D would increase risk to the city’s revenues by relying on a small number of companies for business tax revenues.

The comprehensive reform under 2024’s Prop. M maintained a progressive tax policy that reduced the tax burden on small businesses while protecting the city and taxpayers from volatility and unpredictability. It was developed with rigorous policy analysis and won strong support from a broad coalition. Because the new tax structure only became effective in January 2025, it’s too soon to know what its impacts will be. SPUR believes that the efficacy of the newly adopted tax structure should be thoroughly evaluated, and further analysis should be conducted in partnership with business and labor before returning to the voters with a new revenue proposal.

Vote NO on Prop D - Business Tax Increase

240

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026

Prop. C would reduce our ability to maintain basic services, like transit, at a time when Trump's budget cuts have already done serious damage to #SanFrancisco. It also does nothing to close loopholes or simplify our tax structure, so it will do little or nothing to spur economic growth. No on C.

SPUR's Recommendation
The comprehensive business tax reform under 2024’s Prop. M was developed after months of policy analysis and engagement and has broad support from business, labor, and other stakeholders. Prop. C would not make significant structural changes that warrant another voter measure. It was placed on the ballot primarily to defeat Prop. D, a competing tax measure to increase business taxes. Significantly, it would have a negative net impact on San Francisco’s budget, reducing revenues by an estimated $30 million to $40 million per year at a time when the city is already scrambling to fill a $169 million budget gap for the next fiscal year.

Vote NO on Prop C - Small Business Tax Cuts

110

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026

"Frequent turnover among elected officials can increase reliance on lobbyists, consultants, and long-tenured staff" who know how the system works, but aren't directly accountable to voters. As a longtime consultant myself, I've seen this happen and I agree: the effects are bad. Vote no on B.

SPUR's Recommendation
San Francisco already has term limits. The existing limits balance the goals of reducing incumbency advantage and preserving voter choice. Lifetime bans permanently remove voter choice to elect representatives, and stripping that choice should require a more deliberate and robust process, which this measure did not undergo.

While term limits can increase competition and reduce incumbent power, this measure is unlikely to achieve these objectives on its own and may produce unintended negative consequences. Term limits alone do not fully address the structural factors that shape political power and electoral outcomes.

Additionally, while regular turnover can promote competition, it may limit elected officials’ ability to build long-term expertise, particularly in a city with a complex governance structure like San Francisco. The rarity of political candidates returning after a break in service suggests this measure is designed to address a problem that barely exists.

For these reasons, this measure is not a comprehensive solution to the challenges of incumbency power, electoral competitiveness, and equitable representation. Achieving the desired outcomes of generating new ideas and leaders requires reform related to campaign finance and pathways for political leadership development.

Vote NO on Prop B - Lifetime Term Limits

100

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026

This "bond would ensure that the city’s first responders are prepared to save lives, would help keep residents safely housed and public transportation infrastructure running, and would limit the social and economic burden of disasters on households and public institutions." True! Yes on A.

SPUR's Recommendation
The seismic resilience of public safety infrastructure deserves continued public investment because it’s critical to disaster response. That’s why SPUR supported the 2010, 2014, and 2020 ESER bonds, which have already invested $1.4 billion in earthquake safety. The proposed 2026 ESER bond would ensure that the city’s first responders are prepared to save lives, would help keep residents safely housed and public transportation infrastructure running, and would limit the social and economic burden of disasters on households and public institutions.
Vote YES on Prop A - Earthquake Bond

100

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

“This measure promises to build a more resilient and transparent tax system in San Francisco, while providing tax relief to small businesses that have struggled to recover from the pandemic. The measure would be fiscally neutral...” Yes on Prop M. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

"Prop. L would provide ~$25 million in critically needed, ongoing funding for transit operations, starting as early as 2025." Multiple studies have found that ridehailing cars have seriously worsened congestion. Taxing them is a smart and just way to fund transit. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

Prop K will "increase access to shared public amenities; encourage walking, biking, and transit...and proactively address sea level rise and coastal erosion in a fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible manner." Yes on Prop K! www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

Prop E "could have been enacted legislatively rather than through the ballot box. Additionally, it’s unclear whether the measure would result in a meaningful reform of the city’s commissions...due to the lack of a mechanism to ensure timely action..." No on Prop E. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

SPUR agrees, saying “we are concerned that the evaluation process for commission changes did not incorporate input from the affected departments, stakeholders, and the general public and could have unanticipated consequences.” Vote no on Prop D. 2/2 www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

Why am I being asked to decide on a complex piece of legislation that didn’t need to be on the ballot? Prop A is exactly the kind of measure that our elected representatives can and should, debate and negotiate in a transparent public process. Vote no on Prop C. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

100

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

“Designed to help the city recover on myriad fronts, this bond measure would support...street safety, housing for homeless families, high-quality outdoor civic spaces, and the commitment that all people should have fair and just access to...health care.” Yes on Prop B. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024

Prop A will “ensure that San Francisco’s public schools can provide safe, modern facilities for students & faculty, improving their daily experience & educational outcomes.” Yes on Prop A. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 30/10/2024

Rent control is exactly the kind of complex issue that should be researched & negotiated at the state legislature, in a transparent process, not at the ballot box. As an economist and as a renter, I encourage you to vote no on this misguided measure. No on Prop 33. www.spur.org/voter-guide/... 4/4

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 30/10/2024

“Prop. 5 would better allow local residents to democratically choose to invest in affordable housing and public infrastructure in their communities to improve their quality of life.” Fact check: true! Vote yes on Prop 5. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

000

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 30/10/2024

“California is already paying the cost of climate change impacts. ...By investing in climate action now, voters can reduce future costs both economic and social.” Absolutely. It’s cheaper to retrofit bridges for extreme weather than wait till they fail. Yes on Prop 4. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

032

Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 30/10/2024

“Funding for school facilities is essential to ensure that California students continue to receive quality education. This measure provides an opportunity to address much-needed repairs & investment in new facilities for districts across the state” Amen. Yes on Prop 2! www.spur.org/voter-guide/...

020