Our recommendations for the November 3 election
San Francisco thrives when working people, everyday residents, and neighborhood communities have a meaningful voice in shaping our shared future. Through our grassroots work across the westside, Westside Forward brings neighbors together to expand affordable housing, protect public services, strengthen democratic participation, and advance the common good.
We evaluated the measures in this guide by asking four questions:
- Affordability: Will it help create and preserve truly affordable housing for working families and seniors?
- Accountability and voice: Will it protect community participation, transparency, and accountable government?
- The common good: Will it sustain public transit, schools, healthcare, and other essential services?
- Fair share: Will it ensure that large corporations and the wealthiest Californians contribute their fair share?
We invite you to explore our recommendations and join us in building a westside—and a San Francisco—that is affordable, equitable, democratic, and welcoming to everyone.
About this guide: Westside Forward evaluated selected local, regional, and state ballot measures that most directly relate to our values and current work. We do not make recommendations on every measure appearing on the ballot.
Grassroots Democracy and Community Voice
Democracy works best when residents can organize, participate, and hold government accountable. The measures in this section would affect how San Franciscans place initiatives on the ballot, how the City oversees departments and contracts, how executive authority is exercised, and how communities participate in decisions about development and environmental impacts.
San Francisco Proposition A
Changes to City Departments and Commissions
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop A would make numerous changes to City departments, commissions, and advisory bodies. Among other provisions, it would eliminate or consolidate certain oversight bodies, move others from the City Charter into ordinances that can be changed more easily, and authorize changes to several voter-approved bodies and programs.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: Some administrative modernization may be warranted, but Prop A combines many consequential changes in a single measure and would weaken or make it easier to change several channels for public oversight. Westside Forward believes reform should strengthen effective government while preserving meaningful community participation and accountability.
Official source Official information on San Francisco Prop A (opens in a new tab)
San Francisco Proposition D
Changes to the Ballot-Measure Process
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop D would raise the number of voter signatures required to place a local initiative on the ballot from approximately 10,600 to approximately 42,500. It would also eliminate the ability of the Mayor or four supervisors to place a measure on the ballot without approval from a majority of the Board of Supervisors. Initiative proponents would gain the ability to withdraw a measure up to 102 days before an election.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: Quadrupling the signature requirement would virtually guarantee that only deep-pocketed companies and individuals who can afford paid signature gatherers would be able to get a proposition on the ballot. Grassroots campaigns which rely on volunteers would be out of luck. Part of a $10 million billionaire-backed effort to consolidate power, Prop D erects massive barriers to grassroots community organizing and citizen initiatives.
Official source Official information on San Francisco Prop D (opens in a new tab)
San Francisco Proposition E
City Contracting and the City Administrator
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop E would give the City Administrator exclusive authority to propose most City procurement ordinances, which would take effect unless rejected by the Board of Supervisors or Mayor within 60 days. It would increase the thresholds requiring Board approval of major contracts and leases, expand the City Administrator’s authority over procurement and technology, and extend the administrator’s term from five to ten years.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: Prop E curtails the Board of Supervisors’ traditional oversight of city contracts and shifts significant authority over procurement to the City Administrator. By increasing contract approval thresholds and extending terms, Prop E reduces independent check-and-balance oversight over major City decisions and public funds. It is part of a mayor-sponsored slate of charter amendments aimed at weakening community oversight and legislative checks on executive power.
Official source Official information on San Francisco Prop E (opens in a new tab)
San Francisco Proposition F
Executive-Branch Management
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop F would expand the Mayor’s authority to reorganize many executive-branch departments, transfer duties among departments and commissions, appoint deputy mayors, hire or fire many department heads without commission involvement, and remove most appointed commissioners without cause. Certain departments and oversight bodies would be exempt.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: San Francisco’s government can be made more effective without concentrating so much additional authority in the Mayor’s Office. Westside Forward believes commissions, the Board of Supervisors, and other independent institutions provide important checks, expertise, and opportunities for public participation.
Official source Official information on San Francisco Prop F (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 45
Changes to Environmental Review
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop 45 would change the California Environmental Quality Act for many housing, transportation, water, health, and other projects. It would impose deadlines on environmental reviews and legal challenges and narrow what courts could consider in some cases. Supporters argue that these changes would reduce delays while maintaining environmental protections; opponents argue that they would limit public and judicial review.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: California needs to build housing and essential infrastructure more quickly, but Westside Forward does not support doing so by weakening communities’ ability to understand and challenge environmental and public-health impacts. We favor targeted reforms that improve timelines while preserving meaningful public participation and environmental protections.
Official source Official information on California Prop 45 (opens in a new tab)
Housing and Community Investment
San Francisco and California face an affordability crisis that has displaced working families and placed homeownership increasingly out of reach. These measures concern investment in affordable housing, new forms of public finance, housing preservation, tenant stability, and assistance for prospective homebuyers.
San Francisco Proposition B
Municipal Finance Corporation and Public Bank
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop B would amend the City Charter to authorize San Francisco to establish a nonprofit municipal finance corporation and public bank, subject to adequate funding and resources. It would also establish their missions and governance structures. A public financial institution could support public priorities that may not attract conventional commercial financing.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Westside Forward supports developing democratic financial tools that can invest public resources in affordable housing, small businesses, renewable energy, worker cooperatives, and neighborhood-serving projects. Prop B creates a framework for pursuing that vision while requiring additional steps before the institutions begin operating.
Official source Official information on San Francisco Prop B (opens in a new tab)
San Francisco Proposition C
Housing Trust Fund
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop C would increase required City appropriations to the Housing Trust Fund beginning in fiscal year 2028–29 until annual funding reaches at least $125 million, subject to specified fiscal safeguards. It would extend the fund through 2058 and clarify that it may support social housing, limited-equity housing cooperatives, affordable-housing infrastructure, and expanded down-payment assistance.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: San Francisco cannot meet its housing needs without sustained public investment. Westside Forward supports strengthening a proven local funding source for affordable rental and ownership housing, preservation, stabilization, and housing-related infrastructure while retaining protections for periods of severe fiscal stress.
Official source Official information on San Francisco Prop C (opens in a new tab)
San Francisco Proposition I
Affordable Housing Transfer Tax
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop I would restructure the City’s real-property transfer taxes on transactions valued at $10 million or more and dedicate revenue from a new portion of the tax to affordable housing. The measure directs funding to affordable-housing production, acquisition and rehabilitation, tenant stabilization, eviction prevention, and emergency rental assistance.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Prop I would take half the money raised by the City’s real-estate transfer tax on properties valued over $10 million, an estimated $125 million yearly, and dedicate it to affordable housing, social housing, homelessness prevention, and housing assistance. Following up on a 2020 measure whose revenue went into the general fund, Prop I ensures money is directed toward affordable housing as voters originally intended.
Official source Official title and summary for San Francisco Prop I (opens in a new tab)
San Francisco Proposition J
Foreclosure Transfer-Tax Exemption
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop J would remove a partial transfer-tax exemption for many properties transferred through foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The exemption would remain for single-family homes and residential or qualifying mixed-use properties with fewer than five units. For other affected properties, the tax would be based on fair market value.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Prop J closes a loophole in the transfer tax that allows foreclosed properties to dodge the levy imposed on other real-estate sales. The City’s seen an alarming increase in exemptions claimed by property owners. Had Prop J existed, the city would have collected $232.5 million in fiscal 2025-26 alone. The measure is a step toward accountability and will help defray the city’s deficit and protect public services.
Official source Official legislative digest for San Francisco Prop J (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 1
Affordable Housing Bond
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in state general-obligation bonds for affordable rental housing, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable homes, veterans’ mortgages, and down-payment assistance. The state estimates annual repayment costs of $500 million to $600 million for about 25 years.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Bonds have long-term costs, but California’s need for affordable housing is urgent. Westside Forward supports this major investment in homes for low- and middle-income residents, veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and first-time homebuyers.
Official source Official information on California Prop 1 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 37
Middle-Income Homebuyer Loan Program
NO POSITION Westside Forward takes: NO POSITION
Prop 37 would authorize $25 billion in revenue bonds to provide eligible middle-income buyers with fixed-rate mortgages covering up to 17% of the price of certain newly constructed homes. Participants would have to meet residency, income, occupancy, and down-payment requirements. Homeowners’ mortgage payments—not the State General Fund—would repay the bonds.
Why Westside Forward takes no position: The program could help some middle-income households buy newly constructed homes without direct state costs. However, its benefits would be limited to qualifying buyers and properties, and it would not directly expand deeply affordable rental housing or address the broader structural causes of California’s housing crisis.
Official source Official information on California Prop 37 (opens in a new tab)
Funding Essential Public Services—and Who Pays
Schools, healthcare, public transportation, and other essential services require reliable funding. These measures also raise a fundamental question: Who should pay? Westside Forward favors revenue systems that ask the wealthiest individuals and the largest property owners to contribute more. Our reluctant support for the Regional Transit Measure reflects both the urgent need to preserve transit and our concern about relying on a sales tax.
San Francisco Proposition H
Muni Parcel Tax
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop H would impose a 15-year parcel tax beginning in July 2027, with revenue dedicated to Muni operations. Rates would vary by property type and building size: larger properties generally would pay more, and nonresidential properties would generally pay more than residential properties. Most qualifying owner-occupied homes of seniors would receive an exemption or reduction.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Reliable Muni service is essential for workers, students, seniors, people with disabilities, and residents who do not drive. Prop H would provide stable operating revenue and use a more graduated structure than a flat parcel tax. Westside Forward supports it as an important investment in a more accessible and less car-dependent city.
Official source Official title and summary for San Francisco Prop H (opens in a new tab)
Regional Transit Measure
Regional Transit Funding
YES—RELUCTANTLY Westside Forward recommends: YES—RELUCTANTLY
The Regional Transit Measure would impose a 14-year sales tax to support BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit, and other transit services. The rate would be 1% in San Francisco and one-half percent in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. The measure is projected to generate approximately $980 million annually across the region.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES—RELUCTANTLY: Major transit service cuts would harm riders, increase traffic, undermine climate goals, and fall most heavily on people who depend on public transportation. We therefore support the measure. But a sales tax asks low- and middle-income residents to pay a larger share of their income than wealthy households. Regional and state leaders should pursue fairer long-term funding sources.
Official source Official information on the Regional Transit Measure (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 3
High-Income Tax for Schools and Healthcare
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop 3 would make permanent existing voter-approved income-tax rates on individuals earning more than $371,000, adjusted annually for inflation. The rates otherwise would expire in 2031. The measure would preserve an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion in annual state revenue allocated to public education and associated healthcare funding.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Public schools, community colleges, and healthcare need stable funding. Westside Forward supports maintaining existing rates on the highest-income Californians rather than allowing a large revenue loss that could result in cuts to essential services.
Official source Official information on California Prop 3 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 40
One-Time Billionaire Wealth Tax
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop 40 would impose a one-time tax equal to 5% of wealth above $1 billion, with revenue used primarily for healthcare. The state estimates it would generate tens of billions of dollars over several years, while potentially reducing ongoing income-tax revenue if some affected taxpayers leave California.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: California faces serious healthcare and safety-net needs. Westside Forward supports asking people with more than $1 billion in assets to make a one-time contribution to help protect healthcare and other essential programs. We believe those who have benefited most from the economy can contribute more to the common good.
Official source Official information on California Prop 40 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 41
State Tax and Spending-Limit Restrictions
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop 41 would nullify state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026, if their revenues are excluded from the state spending limit. It also would require the State Auditor to review programs funded by new special taxes before certain initiatives reach the ballot and conduct recurring audits after enactment. Its interaction with Prop 40 could prevent the billionaire tax from taking effect.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: Prop 41 is a direct "poison pill" designed by corporate interests to block Prop 40. It erects arbitrary audit hurdles before special taxes can reach voters and allows refunds if California’s spending limit is exceeded. Should it pass with more votes than Prop 40, it would nullify the Billionaire Tax Act. Westside Forward rejects this attempt to prevent billionaires from paying their fair share.
Official source Official information on California Prop 41 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 42
Ban on New Personal-Property Taxes
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop 42 would prohibit California from adopting new taxes on the ownership of personal property, including financial assets, and would prohibit certain retroactive state taxes. It also would nullify conflicting taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. The measure could prevent Prop 40’s wealth tax from taking effect.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: Prop 42 is another defensive maneuver by ultra-wealthy donors. Like Prop 41, Prop 42 contains a nullification clause meant to invalidate Prop 40 if it gets more votes. We vote NO on this blanket protection for California’s wealthiest households.
Official source Official information on California Prop 42 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 43
Higher Threshold for Local Revenue Measures
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Beginning in 2027, Prop 43 would increase the vote required to approve voter-proposed local special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds. It could affect local measures funding services such as public safety, transportation, healthcare, affordable housing, and other designated purposes.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: A two-thirds requirement would allow slightly more than one-third of voters to block revenue measures supported by a substantial majority. Westside Forward supports majority rule and local communities’ ability to decide how to fund their essential services.
Official source Official information on California Prop 43 (opens in a new tab)
California Government and Elections
The following measures address state budget reserves, public financing of campaigns, recall elections, and voter-identification requirements. Westside Forward evaluated them based on whether they strengthen democratic participation, fair elections, and continuity in essential public services.
California Proposition 2
Rainy Day Fund Expansion
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop 2 would change California’s budget rules to build larger state reserves and continue additional debt payments for a longer period. The goal is to make more funding available for schools, healthcare, public safety, and other services during economic downturns. Critics argue that the measure could reduce taxpayer rebates and does not itself create new program funding.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: California’s revenues can fluctuate sharply from year to year. Westside Forward supports stronger reserves that can help prevent damaging cuts to schools and essential services during recessions and budget shortfalls.
Official source Official information on California Prop 2 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 4
Public Financing of Election Campaigns
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop 4 would repeal California’s prohibition against state and local public financing programs for candidates. Governments could choose to create such programs, but could not use money earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. The measure would not itself establish a statewide public-financing program.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Public financing can help qualified candidates compete without relying primarily on wealthy donors and corporate interests. Westside Forward supports giving state and local voters the option to establish carefully designed programs with appropriate safeguards.
Official source Official information on California Prop 4 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 5
Statewide Recall-Election Reform
YES Westside Forward recommends: YES
Prop 5 would remove the replacement-candidate question from recalls of statewide officers. If an official were recalled, the vacancy generally would be filled through a later special election or an appointment, depending on the office and timing. Opponents argue that this could delay representation or shift replacement authority away from voters in some cases.
Why Westside Forward recommends YES: Under the current system, an official elected by a majority can be replaced by a candidate receiving only a small plurality. Westside Forward supports separating the removal decision from the selection of a successor so that replacement officials are chosen through a more orderly process.
Official source Official information on California Prop 5 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 38
Bonds for Immunology Research
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in state general-obligation bonds to fund immunology research, requiring $500 million to $600 million in annual General Fund debt payments for 20 years.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: While immunology research is a worthy cause, Westside Forward is troubled that a single research institution would be the sole beneficiary. Paying $500 million to $600 million annually from the General Fund diverts critical state dollars needed for schools, healthcare, and essential public services.
Official source Official information on California Prop 38 (opens in a new tab)
California Proposition 39
Voter Identification Requirement
NO Westside Forward recommends: NO
Prop 39 would require in-person voters to present government-issued identification and mail voters to write the final four digits of a designated government identification number on their return envelope. The state estimates annual implementation costs ranging from tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars.
Why Westside Forward recommends NO: Eligible voters without ready access to the required documents could face new barriers, while mail voters could risk having ballots rejected for incomplete information. Westside Forward supports secure elections and broader participation, and does not believe these added requirements strike the right balance.
Official source Official information on California Prop 39 (opens in a new tab)
The Future of the Great Highway and Sunset Dunes
The future of the Upper Great Highway has generated deeply felt and competing views across the westside. Westside Forward recognizes legitimate concerns about transportation, accessibility, recreation, coastal conditions, neighborhood impacts, and the city’s long-term environmental future.
San Francisco Proposition G
Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park
NO POSITION Westside Forward takes: NO POSITION
Prop G would allow private vehicles on the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard except from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 4:00 a.m. and on holidays. Reopening the roadway would require approval from the California Coastal Commission and possibly other agencies.
Why Westside Forward takes no position: Supporters emphasize traffic displacement, mobility and accessibility needs, neighborhood impacts, and the need for better westside transit alternatives. Opponents emphasize preserving Sunset Dunes as a public space for recreation, community gatherings, coastal access, and a less car-dependent future. These competing concerns reflect different elements of Westside Forward’s vision, and the organization has not taken a position.
Official source Official title and summary for San Francisco Prop G (opens in a new tab)
Important dates
- October 5, 2026: County elections officials begin mailing ballots. Early voting begins at the San Francisco City Hall Voting Center.
- October 19, 2026: Standard voter-registration deadline.
- November 3, 2026: Election Day. Polls close at 8:00 p.m.
If you miss the October 19 registration deadline, California offers conditional voter registration through Election Day. San Francisco voters can register and vote at an eligible voting location using the conditional-registration process.
Make a plan to vote
You may return your ballot by mail, use an official ballot drop box, or vote in person. If mailing your ballot close to Election Day, check the official instructions and postmark requirements. To find voting locations, drop boxes, registration information, and accessibility services, visit the San Francisco Department of Elections.
San Francisco voting information (opens in a new tab) Register or check your registration (opens in a new tab) California Official Voter Information Guide (opens in a new tab)
