If you haven’t voted early, or even if you have, welcome to our ballot explainer. As we did in June, we’re avoiding discussion of specific people and sticking to the propositions on San Francisco’s ballot. There are five. Unlike June, we aren’t making explicit recommendations. If you read our descriptions and still can’t make up your mind, here are a few more resources: Endorsements by the Chronicle, the Examiner, SPUR, the SF Bike Coalition, the Harvey Milk Club, the San Francisco Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or Democratic Socialists.
Proposition A: Embarcadero Earthquake Seawall Safety Bond
The globe is rapidly warming, the climate is unleashing one catastrophe after another, and the federal government couldn’t give less of a crap. The infrastructure along the Embarcadero, from Fisherman’s Wharf to China Basin, is decayed and in danger of crumbling under the twin threats of earthquake and sea-level rise. A big flood isn’t just an excuse to wear your fabulous galoshes; it could flood our rail tunnels, paralyze traffic, and fry a lot of utilities.
Fixing it ain’t cheap. The $425 million bond, paid back through property taxes, would only be the first in a series of measures reaching the billions of dollars. It would almost certainly rebuild the actual seawall, but the proposition language keeps the details vague on purpose. First comes the money; then comes the design, more budgeting, planning, and environmental review.
Because it’s a tax thing, passage requires a two-thirds vote. Is it worth it? There are no true comparables to what might befall San Francisco without a major bayfront upgrade, but we do know this: In New York City, where Sandy’s storm surge flooded low-lying areas, tunnels, and the subway system in 2012, the damage was pegged at $19 billion.
Thinking of the cost simply in risk/benefit terms, insurance against disaster, still misses the point. It’s our infrastructure. It’s our city. If we don’t keep it up, it falls apart, be there temblors, tsunamis, king tides, or plain old age. The real question isn’t whether or not to do it; it’s whether we’ll do it expertly and efficiently. Based on current events, that prognostication these days requires not a sophisticated budget analysis but a leap of faith. Come to think of it, that’s a truism about any decision on public spending. It’s also generally true that with deferred maintenance, the ultimate costs will be higher the more we wait.
Proposition B: City Privacy Guidelines
This is an interesting idea from Sup. Aaron Peskin, (in)famous for his joyful dial-a-rants. It’s great that San Francisco wants to lead on data privacy, as it has led on so many issues, some more serious than others.
The vague Prop B would make the city and its contractors put privacy first when collecting, storing, and sharing information; issuing permits and licenses, and God knows what else. That sounds flippant, but it’s actually at the core of the question: We don’t know what would come out these “privacy first” policies because they haven’t been written yet. In other words, Prop B is just a statement of principle. How bad could it be?
Well, the Northern California chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists is opposing Prop B because of potential impacts on public access to local government information, known as the Sunshine Ordinance. Prop B says that the proposed city charter amendment and as-yet-unwritten policies must not clash with the Sunshine Ordinance and other similar laws. But when journalists stick their necks out like this, they’re usually on to something.
Proposition C: Additional Business Taxes to Fund Homeless Services
This is the big megillah. We wrote about it here, so we won’t go too deeply into it again. We haven’t seen anything in the intervening days to move the needle one way or another.
The anti-C folks are doubling down on the “no accountability” argument, with TV spots showing dollars flowing into the sewer of a Mad Men-like illustrated world. The mayor says she doesn’t want the extra money, estimated at $300 million a year to start with, even though she would have some discretion to move it around, or withhold it from contractors who don’t have a track record of being, well, accountable.
At the same time, there are other programs that would address housing scarcity and its ensuing homelessness that are strapped for funding. San Francisco’s Small Sites Program does exactly what progressive and antigrowth activists say they want: put people in permanently affordable, stable, and financially sustainable housing. But now the program can’t make any new site acquisitions. The millions being spent to push Prop C and the millions it will earmark for specific purposes — which can only be altered by another proposition — could be going to desperately needed housing right here and now.
If voters approve Prop C — -which we’ll remind you is an extra tax on the top 300 or so richest corporations and would not raise residents’ taxes — -and the mayor can’t come up with a plan for it, perhaps San Franciscans should vote for a new mayor. The next election is a year away.
San Francisco is into pot. Pot now is big business, but it’s not as big as expected. So it’s not going to be the cash cow (or tie-dyed unicorn) that showers money down on all our problems.
Put your green eyeshade on for this: San Francisco’s cannabis retailers already have to collect 8.5% sales taxes, a 15% excise tax required by the state, as well as a gross receipts tax under 1% once they hit $1 million in sales. That’s where Prop D comes in, starting the gross receipts tax for legal weed slingers at 2.5% once they hit $500,000 in sales of cannabis products. After $1 million, the tax jumps to 5%. For business activities related to cannabis — -but not the hempish stuff itself — -the tax would be 1% on revenues between $500,000 and $1 million, and 1.5% above $1 million. The extra tax would not apply to medical marijuana.
There are other munchies sprinkled into Prop D, such as a modification of the tax code to apply some city taxes to firms that receive more than $500,000 in gross revenue in the city, yet do not have a physical presence here, like online retailers. Not cannabis firms — any firms. Wait, what? Who snuck that in?
Apart from from that sleight of hand, Prop D would saddle cannabis businesses with a tax burden higher than many other companies in town. At a time when the fledgling industry is having trouble taking off, do we really need to make them pay more? We’ve waited a long time for legal cannabis. Let’s inhale and have a good brainstorm about the merits of Prop D.
Proposition E: Partial Allocation of of Hotel Tax for Arts and Cultural Purposes
If you think earmarking millions of dollars for artists is a liberal bleeding-heart San Francisco thing, here’s a fun fact: The hotel tax with a slice dedicated to arts funding first emerged in 1961 under the city’s last Republican mayor, George Christopher.
In 2013, however, the supervisors removed the arts earmark and allowed all hotel tax cash to flow into the general fund, which can be spent however our officials see fit. Should we reinstate it?
Prop E calls for 1.5% of the tax (which hit $370 million recently but fluctuates with the economy) to flow to the arts. Half would go to nonprofit grants; smaller portions would go to community cultural centers, neighborhood heritage districts, and more. A breakdown of the spending is here. Since the arts are a main draw for visitors to our city, shouldn’t a piece of their hotel taxes support them? Not surprisingly, arts and cultural groups say yes. So does the head of the SF Chamber of Commerce.
Everyone loves the arts. But it’s also fair to ask: Should public funding be locked in, potentially to the detriment of other needs? The city controller estimates Prop E would result in $8 million diverted from other funding requirements such as transportation, libraries, and schools. Or the Small Sites Program mentioned above.
This feels like an excellent time to raise a time-honored complaint. Ballot-box budgeting should be used sparingly. The city’s legislators should be able to make a judgment call on arts funding year over year, adjusting as needed. Instead, they have decided — yes, the Board of Supervisors voted 11–0 to put Prop E on the ballot — to punt the decision to us. It’s a high bar to clear. Since it’s a change to tax allocations, Prop E must pass with a two-thirds majority. In other words, a lot of voters must decide whether to make the arts an ironclad funding priority.
