November 2020 Voter Guide – South Bay & Peninsula
In California, policy change often happens on the ballot, and many of the ballot initiatives—especially the local ones—can be hard to understand. Our team has evaluated local measures in San Jose and San Mateo to provide clarity on what the measures do and, where they intersect with TechEquity’s advocacy platforms, make recommendations on how our community should vote. Measures that require a supermajority to pass are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Prop A – Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond* – Yes
San Francisco would borrow $487.5 million to use for housing and services for unhoused San Franciscans, parks, and street and sidewalk maintenance and improvements.
What is Proposition A?
Prop A would allow San Francisco to borrow $487.5 million by issuing bonds and paying the money back with interest over 30 years. $207 million of the borrowed money would be used on supportive housing and shelters, as well as facilities and services for those with mental health and substance use issues. This money would help offset limited state and federal funding as well as the high cost of construction in the city. $239 million would be used for maintenance of parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities which currently have a $950 million deferred maintenance shortfall. The remaining $41.5 million would be used to repair roads and sidewalks, install curb ramps, and make seismic upgrades to public plazas and structures. Currently, there is $799 million in deferred maintenance for roads and public facilities.
Position: Yes. Housing and supportive services for unhoused San Franciscans continue to be extremely pressing needs. The homelessness crisis was already a top priority for the city and the pandemic has only worsened the crisis. The city is correct to seek additional funding, especially considering the limited support from the state and federal government. As always when evaluating bonds for important programs, we recognize that there is a serious need for sustainable funding sources to support these services. That’s why we are longtime supporters of statewide Proposition 15, which would reclaim funding for these important community services. Even if Prop 15 passes, it will still be a few years until the new revenue reaches San Francisco, so we support using this bond to fill in the gap in the meantime.
Prop B – Public Works Restructuring – No Position
Street cleaning, sidewalk maintenance, and sanitation would be taken away from the Public Works department and a new department would be created for these responsibilities.
What is Proposition B?
Prop B would take street cleaning, sidewalk maintenance, and sanitation duties away from the Department of Public Works (DPW). The city would create a new department to perform these tasks. It would also create an oversight commission for the new department and DPW. This measure follows a major fraud scandal involving the former head of DPW, Mohammed Nuru.
Position: No Position. This measure does not have a close nexus to our issue areas or mission.
Prop C – Advisory Board Participation – No Position
Non-citizens would be allowed to serve on city advisory boards.
What is Proposition C?
Prop C would remove the restriction that requires advisory board members to be U.S. citizens. This means non-citizens would be able to serve on boards who give advice to city and county government bodies. The measure would also make all references to committee members gender-neutral.
Position: No Position. This measure does not have a close nexus to our issue areas or mission.
Prop D – Sheriff’s Department Oversight – No Position
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department would be subject to greater oversight.
What is Proposition D?
Prop D would create an oversight board that can make policy recommendations to the sheriff’s department and the Board of Supervisors. It would also create an Office of Inspector General within the department to investigate complaints and in-custody deaths. Neither the oversight board nor Office of Inspector General could discipline department employees, but they both would have subpoena powers to conduct investigations. The measure would also require any evidence of criminal misconduct by department employees to be sent to the San Francisco District Attorney’s office.
Position: No Position. This measure does not have a close nexus to our issue areas or mission.