San Francisco voters were asked to consider six propositions Tuesday. How ballots were cast have a direct impact on The City’s affordable housing, services for disabled and aging residents, vapor tobacco product regulation, traffic congestion and rideshare taxation, teacher housing and campaign disclosures.
Early results indicate some propositions were passed or rejected within a safe enough margin to be considered final, but others still have potential to shift as the last 38,000 ballots are counted. Below is a guide to results for each proposition as of 4 p.m. Thursday, according to the Department of Elections.
Proposition A: Affordable Housing Bond
Yes: 69.89 percent. No: 30.11 percent. Requires two-thirds vote.
The $600 million housing bond would be used to acquire, build and rehabilitate affordable housing for extremely low- to middle-income residents. Funds borrowed and spent under Proposition A would benefit extremely low- and low-income individuals and families, housing development residents, senior, rent-burdened middle-income residents and school district teachers and employees.
Although the measure would allow for a property tax increase to pay for the bond, by policy, The City largely attempts to keep property taxes below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds after older bonds expire.
Proposition B: Department of Disability & Aging Services
Yes: 77.69 percent. No: 22.31 percent.
Passage of Proposition B would effectively change the name of the Department of Aging and Adult Services to the Department of Disability and Aging Services. The measure’s supporters argue that the name change would help make people with disabilities more aware of services offered. In addition, the proposition would require that three of the seven currently mayor-appointed Disability and Aging Services Commission seats be held for one person 60 years old or older, one person with a disability and one person who has served the U.S. military.
Proposition C: Vapor Products
Yes: 18.20 percent. No: 81.80 percent.
This measure would repeal recent laws passed by The City that suspended sales of electronic cigarettes and other tobacco vapor products until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues an authorization. The proposition was initially backed by Juul, a manufacturer of vapor tobacco products, but the company withdrew their support in light of numerous health problems and deaths reported by users. The measure language included various regulations that would be imposed on the industry, but voters overwhelmingly decided to stick with the law passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, pending further FDA data and authorization.
Proposition D: Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax
Yes: 67.31 percent. No: 32.69 percent. Requires two-thirds vote.
If passed, the measure introduced by Supervisor Aaron Peskin would impose a tax through Nov. 5, 2045 on commercial rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft. The businesses would be required to pay a 1.5 percent tax on fares for shared rides and 3.25 percent tax on fares for private rides that originate in San Francisco. The same rules would apply to driverless vehicle companies but would not impact taxis and paratransit companies.
Additionally, the measure would add a 1.5 percent tax on fares for passenger rides in zero-emission vehicles through Dec. 31, 2024.
The City expects the taxes would generate between $30 million and $35 million annually, which will be used in part to improve Muni service and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The revenue would be deposited into a Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fund and be distributed between San Francisco’s municipal and county transit agencies.
Proposition E: Affordable Housing & Educator Housing
Yes: 75.22 percent. No: 24.78 percent.
This housing measure attempts to expedite approval for affordable and educator housing projects in public zoning districts. By amendment to The City’s Planning Code, Proposition E would essentially require 100 percent affordable and educator housing projects to be reviewed within 90 to 180 days and allow the Planning Department to approve qualified projects without Planning Commission review.
Proposition F: Campaign Contributions & Campaign Advertisements
Yes: 76.54 percent. No: 23.46 percent.
Proposition F aims to close campaign contribution loopholes and regulate campaign advertisements. The measure would restrict donations from limited liability companies and partnerships in local elections, and would further restrict contributions made to city officials from persons with land-use approval interests. Additionally, the proposition would require more clear and visual disclaimers on campaign advertisements paid for by independent political groups.