Advocates say that\u2019s what voters wanted in 2020, when they doubled transfer-tax rates on properties valued at more than $10 million.<\/p>\n
Lurie \u2014 who is also championing\u00a0Proposition D<\/a>, which would to make it harder to qualify propositions \u2014 said he did not believe Prop. I \u201cwill lead to any affordable housing being built\u201d and that others should not be \u201cfooled by yet another intentionally misleading ballot measure …\u201d<\/p>\n In addition to warning that Prop. I would blow a hole in the city budget, Lurie \u2014 along with the city police and fire unions \u2014 said it would create “an unaccountable slush fund<\/a>\u201d\u00a0for the groups that wrote it, a charge that Prop. I supporters have vigorously denied.<\/p>\n A committee sponsored by the Building and Construction Trades Council and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce had disclosed raising about $314,100 and spent $28,000 as of Sept. 24 to fight Prop. I and support Proposition C, the Housing Trust Fund measure.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, supporters of Prop. I \u2014 which has been endorsed by the city worker-heavy unions Service Employees International Union Local 1021 and International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers Local 21, among others \u2014 had disclosed raising more than $604,407 since May, though they had already spent $325,000 of that, including on gathering qualification signatures.<\/p>\n \u201cProp. I is one of the most deceptively written measures in recent memory,” said John Doherty, a Building and Construction Trades Council vice president of subcrafts and business manager-financial secretary for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 6, in a statement.<\/p>\n \u201cUnlike other housing funds, Prop I is so narrowly written that it locks in hundreds of millions of dollars that can only be used by one or two nonprofits \u2014 the same nonprofits that support this measure,\u201d Doherty said.\u00a0<\/p>\n He also said Prop. I doesn\u2019t \u201crequire a single new unit of housing to be built\u201d in The City, and that 70% of Prop. I money \u201cCANT be spent by City Hall on building housing even if they wanted to.\u201d<\/p>\n But Prop. I\u2019s backers deny the charges, saying the no on I camp is spreading misinformation about what is in the measure, which would create a new House SF Fund.<\/p>\n Called\u00a0the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act by proponents, Prop. I carries the ballot title \u201cChanges to Real Property Transfer Tax.\u201d Its legal text promises \u201cprotection, preservation, and production\u00a0of affordable housing in San Francisco.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey don\u2019t have a plan to address affordability so instead they attack ours by lying,\u201d said Quintin Mecke, executive director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations.<\/p>\n The no campaign \u201ccan\u2019t win an honest argument about whether the biggest real-estate deals in San Francisco should help fund affordable housing during a rent emergency, so it\u2019s trying to scare voters with things the measure doesn\u2019t say,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Mecke said the \u201cslush fund\u201d charge suggests self-dealing, and it\u2019s \u201cdangerous\u201d to the public perception of nonprofit housing organizations.<\/p>\n He said it\u2019s also factually untrue. He said the money would be awarded through competitive processes managed by the Mayor\u2019s Office of Housing and Community Development, which also helps administer the Housing Trust Fund that Prop. C seeks to augment.<\/p>\n Prop. I\u2019s proponents say it would further require the city Controller\u2019s Office to file annual audits with the Board of Supervisors. The say the measure would not raise taxes and would encourage new construction by halving transfer taxes on sales of properties with four or more units when they are sold for the first time within five years of completion.<\/p>\n The no on I campaign insists Prop. I is \u201cdeceptively written\u201d in part because the text requires that 30% of annual proceeds \u2014 perhaps almost $36 million \u2014 go to \u201cSocial Housing.\u201d<\/p>\n They say the measure adds a new requirement on top of The City\u2019s definition of social housing by stating that \u201cresidents shall have the right to participate directly and meaningfully in decision-making concerning the operation and management of the project.\u201d<\/p>\n Further, the measure says where \u201cfeasible and desirable,\u201d projects shall include resident ownership, including but not limited to limited-equity housing cooperatives.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cProp. I forces The City to spend millions every year on collectively-owned or communally managed housing,\u201d Doherty said. \u201cResidents would need to get approval from committees to make decisions in their own homes.\u201d<\/p>\n A no on I campaign spokesperson asserted that virtually no entities in San Francisco currently provide publicly funded, communally run social housing in San Francisco, and Prop. I does not make clear to voters that that is a goal.<\/p>\n \u201cWe should be putting housing dollars where they can produce the most homes, not locking The City into one approach forever,\u201d Doherty said.<\/p>\n Doherty also faulted the measure for supporting nonprofits in buying apartments and taking them \u201cout of rent control and off the rental market\u201d and for backing programs \u2014 such as tenant education \u2014 that have \u201cnothing to do with building new homes.\u201d<\/p>\n Mecke strongly disputed Doherty\u2019s claims. He said that similar to other housing financing measures, Prop. I does not set numbers of housing units but instead identifies categories for spending.<\/p>\n Of Prop. I proceeds, 30% would go to building multifamily housing, while the 30% allocated to social housing could also be used for new construction, he said.<\/p>\n The city controller reported<\/a> that Prop. I would require that no less than 60% of tax proceeds must be spent on affordable-housing production programs; no less than 25% must be spent on preservation or acquisition programs; no less than 10% must be spent on tenant-stabilization or homelessness-prevention programs; and no more than 5% may be spent on departmental administration of the fund and administration of the tax.<\/p>\n Mecke said Prop. I doesn\u2019t hide the social-housing language, and it shouldn\u2019t be shocking. He likened resident governance to a condominium homeowners association.<\/p>\n He said there are multiple examples of\u00a0resident-governed, permanently affordable housing\u00a0sites in The City, including about a dozen limited-equity housing cooperatives in the Western Addition, Bayview, Diamond Heights and Chinatown.<\/p>\n \u201cTenants having a voice in their own homes isn\u2019t radical \u2014 it\u2019s overdue,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The Mayor\u2019s Office of Housing and Community Development provided a statement saying that\u00a0Prop. I would \u201cintroduce a different approach by requiring fixed, formulaic percentages for how dedicated transfer\u2011tax revenue must be spent.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The fight over Proposition 40 and two related measures is now the second most expensive ballot-measure battle in state history, thanks largely to the ultrarich<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The dish, a San Francisco signature, uses a deceptively simple recipe that is found throughout The City<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
This week, The City will honor the life and legacy of Michael Tilson Thomas, hold a free Golden Gate Park music festival, and adapt an Alfred Hitchcock film<\/p>\n \u201cWhile the funds themselves would be administered in accordance with MOHCD\u2019s existing open and competitive procurement processes and on-going fiscal monitoring, these mandated allocations may significantly limit The City\u2019s ability to build more affordable housing,\u201d the statement said.<\/p>\n The statement also said Prop. I establishes a new definition of \u201csocial housing\u201d that goes beyond what is included in the current administrative code, \u201cincluding new requirements regarding the operation, management, and ownership of the property,\u201d and how those would function in practice has not yet been determined.<\/p>\n The statement said The City \u201cdoes not have a regulatory framework for co\u2011ops,\u201d as only a very small number have received city financial support.<\/p>\n Resident\u2011governed co\u2011ops exist in The City, but are generally not part of The City\u2019s affordable-housing portfolio, the statement said. It said The City did make a $3.9 million seismic-safety loan to a co-op in Chinatown, and a single co-op, in the Fillmore District, receives operating support.<\/p>\n Mecke said the lack of city money going to co-ops highlights an opportunity for The City\u00a0to do more with dedicated funding. Regarding social housing models, Mecke said The City can adopt new standards.<\/p>\n He said the measure\u2019s social-housing allocation could fund construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, adaptive reuse and operations for limited-equity co-ops, community land trusts, tenants buying their own buildings, nonprofit developers building mixed-income housing with resident governance, and public housing The City owns.<\/p>\n Regarding the purchasing of rental units, Mecke said San Francisco has already provided financial support to nonprofits to buy rent-controlled buildings to ensure affordability. He said The City also funds eviction defense and rental assistance, including by providing counsel to people facing eviction.<\/p>\n Rather than voting for Prop. I, Doherty urged voters to back Prop. C,\u00a0which was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors. He said it would increase city contributions to the Housing Trust Fund from about $52 million to $125 million over time.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cProp. C gives San Francisco the flexibility to invest in the housing models that are actually working, including building new housing, and to press pause when the City\u00a0is facing\u00a0a bad budget year,\u201d Doherty said.<\/p>\n Support for the Housing Trust Fund measure remains broad-based despite the conflict over Prop. I, and Mecke and other Prop. I supporters say both measures are needed.<\/p>\n Mecke said he helped craft Prop. C, and The City needs much more money just to build the thousands of affordable homes that have been approved but not built.<\/p>\n The Affordable Housing Guarantee Act first emerged in April after Mecke and a staffer at another housing organization submitted paperwork to start gathering signatures.<\/p>\n The proposal was part of a package of initiatives aimed at accelerating housing construction and\u00a0stimulating economic activity.<\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/6ab5adab376a9.image.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/6aadcad99a186.image.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/651a5048c4a8c.image.jpg\")
<\/p>\n