NOVEMBER 2024 VOTER GUIDE
NO ON PROP G
RENTAL SUBSIDIES
ENDORSE-O-METER SAYS: NO
Proposition G aims to expand an existing fund that subsidizes rent payment for seniors that was created by the Board of Supervisors in 2019. But this money would be a “set-aside” in the city budget, meaning it can only be used for one specific purpose—that puts stress on the city’s budget. We’re voting no on Proposition G because it’s not good fiscal policy, especially during San Francisco’s current economic downturn.
The Context
Proposition G creates a set-aside (money that’s “set aside” in the city’s general fund which can only be used for one purpose) to create rental subsidies for low-income seniors, families and people with disabilities. Set-asides just aren’t good fiscal policy—especially when the city is facing as large a deficit as we currently are. They limit lawmakers' flexibility when drafting city budgets—since so much money is already dedicated to specific sources, officials often can’t direct funds where they can do the most good to meet new challenges. They’re so damaging that voters approved a policy in 2008 that sought to limit the types of set-asides lawmakers could add to the budget. Proposition G is out of compliance with the 2008 policy, but since it’s a non-binding resolution, there’s not much voters can do to stop these kinds of set-aside measures from appearing on the ballot.
Plus, the Senior Operating Subsidies program already exists. It’s been effective at keeping seniors housed, so we’re not really sure why Supervisor Aaron Peskin introduced this measure (besides bolstering support for his mayoral campaign).
The Money
The Controller’s office fiscal analysis found that this amendment will “have a significant impact” on the cost of government, due to the fact it reallocates funds that would otherwise be available to the General Fund.
It starts with $8.25 million in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 and increases to $9 million in FY 2029-30. Over the fund’s 20 year lifespan, the Controller estimates that it would cost the city between $161 million and $222 million.
Additional Details
Proposition G author Supervisor Aaron Peskin has complained in the past about set-asides and how they “really” constrain the city from being able to make nimble fiscal moves. Given that fact and the current financial situation the city is in, now is not the time to add constraints to how the city uses its money.
Support & Opposition
Supporters include elected officials like measure author Supervisor Aaron Peskin, District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston, District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey, District 8 Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen, District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton, and District 11 Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, and community groups like the Chinatown Community Development Center, Community Tenants Association, Housing Rights Committee, and SOMCAN. (Worth noting—the community groups supporting this measure are the ones that stand to benefit most from Prop G’s passage).
Supporting
SF Bay Guardian, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, SF Green Party, SF Tenants Union, Sierra Club, SF Labor Council, SEIU 1021, SF League of Conservation Voters, SF Women’s Political Committee, League of Women Voters SF, D11 Democratic Club, Potrero Hill Democratic Club, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, Bernal Heights Democratic Club, Chinese American Democratic Club, Home Sharers Democratic Club
Opposing
Grow SF, United Democratic Club, Ed Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club, Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Noe Valley Democratic Club
Other Organizations That Share Our Endorsement: San Francisco Chronicle and The United Democratic Club.
Paid for by TogetherSF Action. Not authorized by any candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.