Pull to refresh
Logo
What Changed
Following Why Sign Up
San Francisco voters split on two affordable-housing measures

San Francisco voters split on two affordable-housing measures

Rule Changes San Francisco, CA local

Prop. C, which expands the city's housing trust fund, led with about 80% support; Prop. I, which would have locked transfer-tax money into housing, trailed with 55% against

Yesterday: Prop. C leads, Prop. I trails in election-night returns

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

Two affordable-housing measures shared a San Francisco ballot. Prop. C had no organized opposition and led with roughly 80% of the vote on election night. Prop. I faced nearly $3 million spent against it, most of it from the real-estate industry, and trailed 55% to 45%.

The gap is about mechanism, not ambition. Prop. C lifts the city's yearly affordable-housing allocation from about $50 million to as much as $125 million, drawn from a slice of growth in general-fund revenue or property taxes. Prop. I would have required the roughly $120 million a year in transfer taxes on $10 million-plus property sales to go to affordable housing and tenant assistance, and barred supervisors from changing the tax without voter approval.

Why it matters

Prop. C gives San Francisco's housing fund a larger, steadier stream of money. Prop. I's defeat keeps the transfer tax open to cuts developers have long sought.

Last Monday's email for San Francisco, CA

Sent Nov 2. It carried:

Get next Monday's: one short email a week. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

80%
Prop. C support on election night
Share of votes for the measure expanding the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, per Mission Local's election-night count.
55%
Votes against Prop. I
The transfer-tax earmark trailed by this margin in election-night returns.
$125M
Maximum annual Prop. C allocation
Up from roughly $50 million a year the city currently puts toward affordable housing.
$120M
Annual transfer tax revenue at stake
Prop. I would have earmarked this money for housing instead of the general fund.
$2.7M
Raised by the committee backing C and opposing I
Most of it came from the real-estate industry, according to Mission Local.
79%
Prop. J support on election night
The companion measure closing a foreclosure exemption in the transfer tax, projected to raise $100 million to $150 million a year.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

Daniel Lurie
Daniel Lurie
Mayor of San Francisco
In office; withdrew his transfer tax cut proposal in June 2026
 Bilal Mahmood
Bilal Mahmood
San Francisco supervisor
In office
 Dean Preston
Dean Preston
Former San Francisco supervisor
Out of office; donor to the pro-Prop. I fund
 Saikat Chakrabarti
Saikat Chakrabarti
Former congressional candidate
Donor to the pro-Prop. I fund
JT
Joaquín Torres
San Francisco assessor
In office

Organizations Involved

San Francisco Board of Supervisors
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
City legislative body
Holds authority to amend the transfer tax, which Prop. I would have removed

The city's legislature, which sets the budget and can amend tax rates unless voters restrict that power.
SP
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
Urban policy nonprofit
Endorsed Prop. C in its 2026 ballot analysis

A Bay Area urban policy group that publishes ballot analyses and endorsed Prop. C as a steadier housing funding source.

Timeline

2020 November 2026

4 events Latest: Yesterday
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Prop. C leads, Prop. I trails in election-night returns

    Latest Election

    Prop. C sat near 80% support; Prop. I was 55% against. Prop. J, closing a foreclosure loophole, led with 79%.

  2. Transfer tax cut withdrawn over budget deficit

    Policy

    Lurie and Mahmood pulled the proposal, citing the city's ongoing budget deficit.

  3. Mayor and supervisor propose halving the transfer tax

    Policy

    Daniel Lurie and Bilal Mahmood announced a plan to cut transfer tax rates in half.

  4. Voters raise transfer taxes on luxury property sales

    Election

    A Preston-backed measure lifted rates to 5.5% and 6% on sales above $10 million; the revenue was not earmarked for housing.

Scenarios

1

Transfer tax cut returns to the Board of Supervisors

Likely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Mission Local, which reports a revived cut is widely expected if Prop. I fails

With the earmark defeated, developers and the real-estate industry press again for lower transfer tax rates. Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mahmood, who proposed a 50% cut in February before withdrawing it over the deficit, reintroduce legislation or a ballot measure. The fight moves from the ballot to City Hall.

2

Late ballots flip Prop. I into a win

Unlikely Resolves by Dec 1, 2026

Discussed by: No analyst in the reporting predicts this; the scenario tracks the gap between election-night counts and certified results

Election-night returns are not final. If the remaining mail and provisional ballots skew heavily toward yes on Prop. I, the 55% against could narrow. The measure currently trails by ten points, well outside the margins that typically reverse in late counts.

3

Prop. C delivers its full $125 million

Possible Resolves by Aug 15, 2027

Discussed by: Mission Local's description of the measure's funding formula

Prop. C sets aside a small share of growth in general-fund revenue or property taxes, so the payout depends on how fast those revenues rise. A strong budget year could take the affordable-housing allocation from about $50 million toward the $125 million ceiling; a weak one keeps it closer to current levels.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

2020

San Francisco transfer tax increase (2020)

Voters passed a ballot measure backed by then-supervisor Dean Preston that raised the real property transfer tax on expensive buildings to 5.5% for sales between $10 million and $25 million and 6% above that. The measure was pitched as a way to fund affordable housing, but the revenue was not legally required to go there.

Then

Mayor London Breed directed the money to other city services; Mayor Daniel Lurie's administration has continued the practice.

Now

Developers blamed the tax for stalled projects, and the unrealized housing funding became the argument for Prop. I's earmark.

Why this matters now

Prop. I was written to finish what the 2020 measure started: guaranteeing the money went to housing. Its apparent defeat leaves the revenue in the general fund again.

2018

California Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act (2018)

Voters approved a statewide housing bond that funded affordable rental production and homeownership programs. Demand far outstripped the money: the funds were fully committed within five years, by the end of 2023, and the state's main multifamily housing program is routinely oversubscribed about nine to one.

Then

Thousands of affordable homes got built or preserved, but the pipeline of projects needing a final subsidy kept growing.

Now

State leaders put an $11.25 billion bond on the November 2026 ballot to refill the programs.

Why this matters now

It shows why local money like Prop. C matters: affordable projects cannot be built on affordable rents alone, and they need a predictable subsidy source.

March 2024

San Francisco Measure A housing bond (2024)

San Francisco voters approved a $300 million affordable housing bond with about 68.5% support, clearing the two-thirds threshold required for local housing bonds. It was projected to create more than 1,600 homes for low-income residents.

Then

The bond gave the city a one-time infusion for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of low-income housing.

Now

It established that housing spending can clear the two-thirds bar in San Francisco, though bonds are one-time money rather than an ongoing revenue stream.

Why this matters now

Prop. C is the ongoing-funding counterpart to that bond. It replaces a one-time pot of money with a share of growing city revenue.

Sources

(4)
Mission Local SPUR California Budget & Policy Center National Low Income Housing Coalition