Based on a tally of 273,736 ballots cast, which is roughly half of the 513,623 potential votes in San Francisco, here are early results for the real estate related ballot measures we’re tracking:

Proposition B (Parcel Tax to Fund City College): 80% YES / 20% NO
Proposition C (Financing for Affordable Housing): 76% YES / 24% NO
Proposition E (City Responsibility for Street Trees): 79% YES / 21% NO
Proposition J (Funding for Homelessness and Transit): 66% YES / 34% NO
Proposition M (Housing and Development Commission): 44% YES / 56% NO
Proposition O (Office Space at Hunters/Candlestick Point): 53% YES / 47% NO
Proposition P (Competitive Bidding for Affordable Housing): 33% YES / 67% NO
Proposition Q (Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks): 53% YES / 47% NO
Proposition U (Raising Income limits for BMR Rentals): 35% YES / 65% NO
Proposition W (Higher Transfer Tax for Sales Over $5M): 62% YES / 38% NO
Proposition X (Preservation of Local PDR, Community and Arts Space): 59% YES / 41% NO

Keep in mind that propositions B and C require 66⅔% Yes votes to pass.

And here’s a link to the early results for all the propositions, races and election results.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Kento

    Yaaaay! Prop Q passed!! So happy!!!

    • Posted by seriously

      Thankfully! Common sense. I’m amazed the margin was so narrow.The 24 Hour warning and storing occupants’ belongings free for 90 days is above and beyond what’s required.

    • Posted by two beers

      Yes, it makes much more sense for the homeless to sleep on the sidewalks without benefit of tents for warmth and privacy. If you want warmth and privacy, buy a house!

      Well, it’s back to cardboard boxes, I guess. Maybe next election we can ban those, too?

      • Posted by notents

        they’re illegal in NYC. you don’t see any there at all. you give someone an inch and they take a mile and you wind up with a miniature city under the freeway. you have to draw the line somewhere.

      • Posted by Neighborhood Activist

        Maybe if we make it uncomfortable enough for them, they’ll leave and go somewhere else. Maybe someplace cheaper, where they can more easily support themselves. We’ve been enabling “homelessness” for far too long.

        • Posted by Some Guy

          Not going to happen. ONE reason only: such mild, mild weather here. People die on the streets during winter where they HAVE such a thing. No real winter = major incentive to stick around here.

        • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

          That’s a whack-a-mole approach. Crack down in SF and homeless will move elsewhere in the Bay Area. Crack down uniformly in the Bay Area and they’ll move elsewhere in California. It is a national issue and places with mild climates like the Bay Area bear the brunt.

          A better solution is to address this at the Federal level to reduce homelessness at the source but I have a feeling that the new government will not be enthusiastic.

    • Posted by anon2.5

      This was a really idiotic proposition that defies common sense. I am surprised so many people were hoodwinked by it. Some problems:

      (1) there are already laws that can be enforced for keeping tents off the sidewalk. Not sure why we need one more.
      (2) Can only notice an eviction of an encampment if there is space available in shelter. There is not nearly enough shelter space available to support all the homeless in the city. Practically, the law creates an entitlement until shelter space can be secured.
      (3) The shelter is only guaranteed for 24 hours. Plus with lack of shelter space, the shelters can’t afford to allow people to stay for much longer. Person leaves shelter, picks up his tent from storage, and returns to the same location or a different location.
      (4) Cycle continues.

      Congratulations on your proposition victory.

  2. Posted by Some Guy

    Looks like it’s still a pretty liberal city.

    Curious to see what this Trump thing does to the real estate markets. Doesn’t bode well, but I’m keeping an open mind.

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      Trump’s trade wars will cost jobs which will drive down the cost of housing. “Progressives” will cheer every job lost in tech, never mind that far more low-skilled jobs will disappear.

  3. Posted by taco

    Free things for everyone. Who can say no?

    • Posted by ohmy

      Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

  4. Posted by Ren Lu

    Why Prop B passed?! College benefits everyone! Why only on property owners? Sooner or later, all the properties of San Francisco will be owned by City and developers only. Since the property tax getting higher & higher, finally no one can afford it sooner or later.

    • Posted by SFist

      Agreed. Why is it the law to pass on all the bond costs / parcel taxes onto costs to owners? What about all the rich renters? This just makes the division in this City worse. Middle class are essentially forced out by the subsidized long time renters.

      With taxes so high on new purchases, will owners of rental property invest their rental income money elsewhere?

      • Posted by RobBob

        Can’t you apply for an operation and maintenance pass through if you are a landlord and your costs go up?

        As for rich renters, I know there were a number of articles in the NY Times regarding wealthy renters with rent control in New York, but is this even a really big problem in San Francisco? Long time residents here benefiting from rent control are more likely to part of the old non tech based economy, whereas newer residents who could be considered “rich” based on their salary are also paying very high rents. Even these newer residents complain about SF real estate being unaffordable.

        • Posted by SFist

          The older folks have been hoarding multiple units for decades, subletting them out. This is where the problem lies. I’d like to see every tenant registered, and have means testing applied. Te new tech folks should be aiming their anger at this old guard, and their entitlement. Plenty of examples of it in SF.
          The O&M pass through is so so low that it’s not even worth applying for. $30/mth max for each unit, seriously!!! More paperwork than it’s worth if you have just a couple of units.

    • Posted by Freeloader

      City Taxes went down last year. What are you talking about? Net rate is like 1.2%

  5. Posted by Miah

    If it was so difficult to own property in San Francisco, people wouldn’t buy it. I’m tired of hearing property owners whining about how hard they have it in San Francisco. I think many other populations in the city have it rougher than you do, homeowners. Stop whining about taxes. I’m a homeowner here, and I’m happy to do my part for the community I live in and care about.

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      Homeowners would pay their taxes with more satisfaction if they got something in return. Like public schools, mass transit and street sanitation that were worthy of a developed country.

      • Posted by Jake

        If SF homeowners paid property tax rates worthy of a developed country then they would be more likely to get commensurate services. Expecting to get what you don’t pay for is not worthy of a developed person.

        • Posted by Iolderpete

          Some do, and some don’t

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles