Eleven local measures are set to appear on this November’s ballot in San Francisco, measures which have just been lettered from A (the $310 million Affordable Housing Bond) to K (the revised Surplus Property Ordinance). The full rundown and summaries from the Department of Elections or past SocketSite coverage:

A – $310 Million Affordable Housing General Obligation Bond
B – Enhancement of Paid Parental Leave for City Employees
C – Expenditure Lobbyists Ordinance
D – Mission Rock Development
E – Requirements For Public Meetings of Local Policy Bodies
F – Short-Term Residential Rentals Ordinance
G – Disclosures Regarding Renewable Energy
H – Clean Energy Right to Know Act
I – Mission District Housing Moratorium
J – Establishing the Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund
K – Surplus City Property Ordinance (Revised)

We’ll be closely tracking measures A, D, F, I and K through the election. Feel free to start the sloganeering below.

39 thoughts on “All The Way From A to K: San Francisco’s Ballot Measure Rundown”
      1. If elected officials don’t listen to the people…the people can vote them out in the next election! I know, crazy.

    1. “Why have elected representatives if we are going to legislate by ballot?”

      I truly hope your question is a funny joke and not mere naivete. No elected official truly represents the will of the voting public. Elected representatives are often just the least terrible of the few candidates who actually run. Frequently they are the candidates who raised the most campaign donations.

      Now if we could only have ballot initiatives on Federal issues rather than a supreme court…abortion, anyone? Gay marriage….drug legalization…war in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan? Let the people decide.

      1. You are being naive if you thinking leaving issues like civil rights up to a majority vote is a good thing.

      2. Nah. The founders set up this country as a republic for a reason….. and their reasoning still holds true, given the stupid decisions that SF voters make every year on the ballot.

  1. Are you new to San Francisco or California? Legislation by ballot is a century old tradition here. Direct democracy in action.

    1. I think you meant inaction via direct democracy. The entire US points to California as an example of how not to make decisions.

  2. I am looking forward to voting “no” on nearly if not all of these measures – particularly those placed on the ballot by the BOS. (What do we pay these people for anyway?)

    1. Could not agree more. For this one instance, Bill Belichick has the best line:


      Our supervisors were elected to make decisions. When they push items to the ballot, it seems to be for one of two reasons:

      A. They don’t want to have a vote “on the record” that may hurt them when they run for a different elected position;

      B. They know they don’t have the votes on the Board to get it passed – or that they know the Mayor would veto it.

  3. VOTING ‘NO’ on All of these.
    No to bigger payouts & higher taxes.

    Maybe a yes on the Moratorium, depending on what other Campos crap comes up btwn now & then.

  4. I’m fed up too. Contemplating a “No” on everything that comes down the ‘pike until at-large supervisors elections goes away again, like it did between 1980-2000.

  5. Leaning Yes on C and F. Still thinking about B and E. No on the rest.

    At large elections are never going away in SF. Never. Reverting to citywide elections would almost certainly be unlawful as it would adversely impact black and Latino candidates, and perhaps Asian candidates as well.

    1. eh? Meant to say at-large elections resume again, like they did in 1980-2000. At-large and citywide are synonymous. Your idea of how this would impact candidates of color strikes me as nonsense.

      1. Right – District elections are never going away (i.e. at-large elections are never coming back).

        This stems from the California Voting Rights Act (passed in 2001 – after SF reverted to district elections). Any attempt to go back to citywide elections would likely be struck down in about 5 minutes.

      2. at-large elections are generally interpreted as favoring the majority – e.g, the majority can elect all the members of a board (with no minority representation), while the use of district-based voting can increase the odds that some minority members will be elected (from districts where the minority is heavily represented).

        that’s the theory. I completely agree that in practice, it can allow for entrenched supervisors who make irrational or inane votes that affect people who can’t “fight back” by voting against them – e.g., residents of the Mission can’t vote against Mar, even though Mar gets to vote on proposals that affect the Mission and not the Richmond (which Mar [purports to] represents).

  6. Don’t understand the inclination to vote ‘No’ on everything. D is turning a giant parking lot into affordable housing, retail, and parks. OH I know why people want to vote no on it: it has no affect on their life because they have a comfy situation in telegraph hill. I happen to live in Mission Bay and the idea of turning a big, dark parking lot into a row of buildings, parks, and housing is clearly good for the whole SoMa area which is for the most part sterile and empty. But I suppose that might make some people’s commutes a few minutes longer, better shoot it down!

  7. I assure you that very little if any of SoMa is empty and none of it aside from a few medical offices is sterile.

    To those who wonder why this alphabetter of choices: We the Sheeple, being unwilling to cede sovereignty to the more (financially) well endowed and their hirelings, apply our sausage sniff test once or twice every year or two. In this way, the people’s right to be wrong shall not perish from the mirth. Also, can’t let the SF-elect-and-select, such as Leland Yee and Mel Murphy, bear all the direct blame.

    yes on B, people with newborns should be kept away from operating heavily flawed hazardous equipment, like the machinery of the city government.
    yes on C, follow the money to the honey.
    no on D, rezone an openspace to the tallest on the waterfront (except for FONTANA TOWERS) with one parking garage to rue them all, not.
    yes on F, letting your neighbors know you are opening a bed-no-breakfast is neighborly.

    no on everything else ’cause tldr.

    1. Your argument on D makes no sense. Its not rezoning ‘openspace’. You make it sound like they’re turning Golden Gate park into a strip mall.

      They’re converting a huge, concrete parking lot into a water front park, market-rate and subsidized housing, restaurants, and more. And they’re building it up to 250 ft…same as other buildings in mission bay and it doesn’t block anyone’s water front view. Blocking it is senseless NIMBYism in action.

      1. You seem to be a low information voter. Parking Lot A is asphalt. The height limits in Mission Bay are 160 feet and lower. This prop D is for 240 feet, not 250. Most of this site is zoned MB-OS (Mission Bay-Open Space) and has been for a long time. To wit…

        (e) MB-OS Districts. In MB-OS Districts, the height and bulk of buildings and structures shall be consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Design Guidelines in the Mission Bay Plan and with the policies of the Urban Design, Recreation and Open Space and other elements of the Master Plan. The commercial uses permitted by Section 916 are limited in height to a single story.”

        You make it sound like you don’t know what you are talking about. If you would like to start from the facts, then there may be an honest basis for an exchange of views, views unblocked by falsehoods.

        1. Thanks for verifying that information. However, those details are negligible in comparison to the amount of positive impact building Mission Rock would have on the community. What’s this obsession with acres of open space? This city is in desperate need of more housing. On the other hand, SF is rich with open space; The Embarcadero, Mission Dolores Park, Golden Gate Park, Land’s End, Fort Mason, The Presidio, and countless other open space destinations are within 10-20 minutes of this site. We don’t need a giant park in these transportation rich, dense areas. We need housing.

  8. I will vote No on all but D.

    I hope A goes down hard. I was sympathetic to it until the city paid $900k per unit for the new “affordable” housing in the mission. We should vote no because it’s clear they will just waste the money

  9. I also wish for at least an at large city election of 5 city wide supervisors and 5 large district (combining some of the 11 districts into 5) supervisors (do we really need 11?)

    I also plan to vote and encourage others to vote no on A (the City is planning to build $899,000 BMR units at 16th & S. Van Ness. Hello!!??)
    And in my opinion, Mission Rock is DOA 11 buildings between 9-24 stories, the Giants never show the buildings, just the open space they’d like to sell as the image of this new neighborhood. BTW, how many parking spaces are being removed, and how many in final plan?

    Here is a look at what is being planned.

    IMHO: the Giants and Warriors (here I go again) should get together and develop an LA Live/Staples Center Arena and Entertainment complex on this site. This would benefit the City and the whole Bay Area, the infrastructure is there, schedules could be worked out between the teams and special events.

    The lot where the arena is now planned could be turned into BMR & market rate housing and allay the nimbys @ UCSF Hospital. Too bad City Hall doesn’t have the clout to get these two sets of millionaire team owners together to build something great that they can both live with $$ wise….

  10. I will revise my earlier comment to support Measures D and F but honestly don’t know why I should have to. Nearly every measure here represents a failure of government.

  11. I just saw J for the first time. So, the gang of four communists can’t get something passed by the board so they resort to this? If a business isn’t profitable it’s not the taxpayers problem.

  12. A= No, because the city will waste the money by developments like the one in Mission that will cost $1M per affordable unit
    D= yes, obvious
    F= yes, because its not OK to have hotels in areas not zoned for them
    I= NO, OBViOUSLY will raise housing prices
    K= NO, homeowners already pay too much, and any tax should be spread across all population (including the majority which are renters)

  13. A = Y
    B = Y
    C = Doesn’t Matter (Y)
    D = Y
    E = Y
    F = N
    G = N
    H = Y
    I = N
    J = No Opinion (N)
    K = Y

    Last time I voted with the majority on 12/12 of the initiatives, let’s see how I do this time. I just wish I could vote against that corrupt NIMBY Aaron Peskin.

    1. Assuming the early results hold, you voted with the majority on 9 of the 11 initiatives in this election, missing on Measures E (Requirements for Public Meetings, which has failed) and J (Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund, which has effectively passed).

      And Christensen could have used your vote as Peskin appears to have won.

Leave a Reply

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