Support: Prop A is supported by key figures and organizations including the San Francisco Parent Coalition, United Educators of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. Proponents argue that this bond measure is critical for ensuring that San Francisco’s aging schools are brought up to modern safety and educational standards. With many school buildings over 60 years old, including temporary portable classrooms that don’t meet current safety codes, the measure will address seismic upgrades, improve heating, cooling, and ventilation systems, and enhance outdated kitchens and cafeterias. Supporters emphasize that Prop A does not raise taxes and is a financially responsible solution to maintaining the quality of education in the city. Investing in safer, modern schools is seen as an essential step in providing a conducive learning environment for students and preparing them for future success. Proponents urge voters to prioritize the safety and success of children by voting yes.

​

Opposition: Opponents, such as the San Francisco Apartment Association, argue that the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has shown a consistent pattern of mismanaging funds from previous bond measures, including a $744 million bond from 2016. They claim that despite receiving significant funding, SFUSD has failed to produce audited financial statements and has not properly overseen spending, leading to misallocated funds. Critics point to wasteful spending, such as legal defense against lawsuits from attempts to rename schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a payroll system that failed to pay teachers on time. With an already large city budget and a looming $800 million deficit, opponents believe now is not the time to approve additional bonds, which would increase taxpayer debt. They argue that approving nearly $800 million more will only add to the city’s financial woes without addressing the district's core issues.

​

Support: Prop B is strongly supported by a coalition of public health advocates, civic leaders, and business organizations, including the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation, Healthy, Vibrant SF, Yes on B, and DeSilva Gates Construction. Key political figures such as Mayor London Breed, Board President Aaron Peskin, Senator Scott Wiener, and Supervisors Connie Chan, Matt Dorsey, Joel Engardio, and Rafael Mandelman have all voiced their support. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club, and the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club are also notable endorsers.

​

Supporters argue that Prop B is crucial for addressing San Francisco’s public health and homelessness crises by funding the expansion of health services and improving facilities. They emphasize that the bond will upgrade medical facilities, expand mental health and substance use treatment programs, and provide much-needed shelter for homeless residents. Prop B aims to create a healthier, safer San Francisco by tackling the root causes of homelessness and ensuring that the city’s medical infrastructure can meet future demands. With support from community organizations like the Castro Merchants Association and labor groups, proponents highlight that Prop B is an investment in both public health and public safety, ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to the services they need.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop B, including the San Francisco Apartment Association, DemandMuniReform.com, and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, argue that while addressing homelessness and public health is important, the city cannot afford additional debt. They point to past mismanagement of funds and express concerns about the bond’s reliance on borrowing, which could result in higher taxes or cutbacks in other essential services.

​

Opponents also include the SF Hotel Council, Advance SF, and the Briones Society, who emphasize that Prop B does not offer a long-term solution to homelessness or public health. They argue that throwing more money at these problems without first addressing inefficiencies within the current system is not a sustainable approach. Critics claim that past bonds and funding initiatives have not delivered meaningful progress, with little accountability for how funds are spent. They believe the city should focus on systemic reforms and alternative funding methods rather than increasing public debt. Additionally, opponents worry that the bond’s financial impact could strain the city’s already burdened budget, leading to cuts in other areas like public transportation and education.

Support: Prop C is supported by a wide range of public officials and governance reform advocates, including Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, Supervisors Connie Chan, Catherine Stefani, Joel Engardio, Dean Preston, Matt Dorsey, Myrna Melgar, Rafael Mandelman, Hillary Ronen, and Shamann Walton. This measure is also endorsed by organizations like Build Affordable Faster California. Supporters argue that establishing an independent Inspector General is critical to combating corruption in city government. San Francisco has experienced numerous scandals involving city employees and contractors, with more than two dozen arrests since 1999. Proponents believe that an Inspector General would provide much-needed oversight, particularly in cases where city funds are misused. Unlike current oversight mechanisms, which have proven insufficient, this position would have the authority to subpoena records and conduct thorough investigations into financial mismanagement. Supporters argue that San Francisco is one of the few major U.S. cities without such a role, and Prop C would allow for more effective and accountable government, free from political interference.

​

Opposition: While there is limited formal opposition to Prop C, some critics may argue that adding another oversight office introduces additional bureaucracy that could slow down city operations. Skeptics might question the necessity of creating a new Inspector General when existing oversight bodies, such as the Controller’s Office and Ethics Commission, are already tasked with similar responsibilities. Additionally, concerns may arise regarding the costs associated with establishing and maintaining the office, as well as whether the Inspector General would truly be independent from political influence. Opponents may believe that bolstering existing mechanisms would be more efficient than creating a new office.

Support: Prop D is backed by newer, heavily funded political organizations such as TogetherSF Action and GrowSF, alongside supporters like Supervisor Matt Dorsey. Proponents argue that San Francisco’s government is burdened by an excessive number of commissions—many of which are duplicative, inefficient, or redundant. Prop D seeks to streamline city operations by eliminating or consolidating over 20 commissions, including the Arts, Library, Health, Youth, Small Business, and Environment Commissions. Supporters claim this will reduce bureaucracy, cut costs, and increase government transparency and efficiency. By focusing on key areas and eliminating unnecessary commissions, the measure will allow San Francisco’s government to focus on essential services, preventing wasted time and resources on ineffective oversight bodies. Proponents see this as a chance to make government more agile and responsive in addressing the city's pressing issues.

​

Opposition: Opponents, including the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, and the San Francisco Labor Council, argue that Prop D is a dangerous measure that would undermine public participation and oversight. The opposition includes key political figures like Board President Aaron Peskin and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (ret.). They argue that eliminating commissions like the Health Commission and the Homeless Oversight Commission would reduce transparency and accountability, allowing important decisions to be made without public input. Critics also note that Prop D was funded by conservative billionaires and lacks sufficient local support, raising concerns about its true intent. They emphasize that commissions play a vital role in ensuring public oversight and addressing important issues like homelessness, healthcare, and the environment.

Support: Prop E is supported by a coalition of governance reform advocates who believe it offers a balanced and transparent way to reform the city's commission system. Key supporters include organizations such as the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, the San Francisco Labor Council, and United Educators of San Francisco. Prominent political figures such as Board President Aaron Peskin, Senator Mark Leno (ret.), Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (ret.), and Former Supervisor Sophie Maxwell also endorse the measure.

​

Supporters argue that Prop E mandates a public review, complete with cost-benefit analysis, of every city commission to determine how to streamline city government while preserving citizen engagement. Unlike Prop D, which they argue takes a "meat ax" approach to dismantling commissions, Prop E aims to ensure thoughtful reform that maintains critical oversight in areas such as public health, civil rights, and youth services. They emphasize that Prop E keeps voters in control of the reform process, preserving open government and preventing backroom decision-making. By making targeted reforms and preserving essential commissions, Prop E is seen as a balanced way to make San Francisco's government more efficient without sacrificing transparency or community input.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop E argue that the measure is a cynical attempt to undermine the more comprehensive reforms proposed in Prop D. Critics claim that Prop E creates unnecessary task forces and studies that will only delay meaningful change. They assert that Prop E does little to reduce the number of redundant or ineffective commissions, and instead perpetuates the bloated bureaucracy that many believe has made San Francisco’s government inefficient.

​

The opposition points out that Prop E does not go far enough to streamline city governance and allows duplicative commissions to continue operating at the taxpayers' expense. They argue that Prop D offers more substantial reforms by eliminating unnecessary commissions and reducing wasteful spending. Critics claim that Prop E was designed to confuse voters and weaken support for Prop D, ultimately preventing real government reform. They urge voters to reject Prop E and support Prop D for more impactful and effective changes.

Support: Prop F is supported by a range of public safety officials and civic leaders, including San Francisco Police Officers Association, Chief of Police William Scott, and former Chief Greg Suhr. Prominent political supporters include Supervisors Matt Dorsey, Catherine Stefani, Joel Engardio, and Rafael Mandelman. Proponents argue that the measure addresses the city’s severe police staffing shortage, which has left the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) more than 500 officers below the required staffing levels. Prop F seeks to incentivize experienced officers to delay retirement for up to five years by allowing them to receive pension payments while still on active duty, providing stability as SFPD continues to recruit new officers. Advocates highlight that chronic understaffing leads to higher overtime costs, burnout among officers, and delayed emergency response times, all of which undermine public safety. They emphasize that this plan is a cost-effective solution designed to retain experienced officers while boosting neighborhood patrols and investigations.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop F include civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Law Caucus, and Chinese for Affirmative Action, as well as Supervisors Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen, and Shamann Walton. They argue that the measure will not meaningfully address the staffing crisis and will instead create expensive double-dipping for senior officers, allowing them to collect both salaries and pensions simultaneously. Critics point to a previous version of this program, which they claim was abandoned in 2011 due to high costs and lack of efficacy in recruiting or retaining officers. They also argue that Prop F unfairly rewards police officers over other public safety workers, such as firefighters and social workers, who face similar staffing challenges. Opponents assert that the city should focus on systemic reforms and better recruitment efforts rather than recycling expensive and ineffective policies.

Support Prop G has garnered strong support from organizations such as the Council of Community Housing Organizations, Self-Help for the Elderly, and the Chinatown Community Development Center, as well as political leaders like Board President Aaron Peskin and Mayor London Breed. Proponents argue that the measure provides crucial funding for deeply affordable housing targeting low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities, who are most at risk of displacement and homelessness in San Francisco. Prop G commits $8 million annually from existing city revenues to ensure that San Francisco's most vulnerable residents can access safe, stable, and affordable housing without raising taxes. Supporters emphasize the importance of addressing the housing crisis for low-income communities, which often experience overcrowding and substandard living conditions. By prioritizing housing for the city's lowest-income residents, Prop G aims to prevent homelessness and create a more inclusive, affordable San Francisco for all.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop G argue that the measure could lead to unintended consequences, including increased rents and further strain on the city's general fund. They claim that by using public money to subsidize private rents, Prop G may inadvertently incentivize landlords to raise prices, ultimately making housing less affordable for many San Franciscans. Critics also express concerns about the lack of safeguards against potential fraud and mismanagement in rental subsidy programs, citing past instances of abuse in affordable housing programs. Additionally, they argue that the city should focus on building long-term affordable housing solutions rather than relying on rental subsidies that provide only temporary relief. Opponents suggest that Prop G may squander taxpayer resources without addressing the root causes of the housing crisis.

Support Prop H is supported by the San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, Supervisors Catherine Stefani, Aaron Peskin, Connie Chan, Matt Dorsey, Joel Engardio, and others. The measure is backed by those who argue that firefighting is one of the most dangerous and physically taxing professions. Proponents highlight the fact that cancer is the leading cause of death among firefighters, with many diagnoses occurring after the age of 50, due to prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals. Prop H would reduce the retirement age for firefighters hired after 2012 from 58 to 55, making it consistent with the retirement age for those hired before that year. This change is framed as a critical public health measure, allowing firefighters to retire before they are exposed to additional risks that come with aging on the job. It is also argued that this change will reduce worker’s compensation costs by decreasing long-term health issues among firefighters, while offering a fairer system for all.

​

Opposition: The opposition to Prop H comes from groups like the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, who argue that San Francisco firefighters are already among the highest paid in the region, with an average salary of $136,656. Critics say that the current retirement age was implemented to address long-term pension sustainability issues and should not be rolled back. They caution that lowering the retirement age could increase the city’s pension liabilities, leading to fiscal strain. Opponents argue that this change may be financially unsustainable for the city in the long term, particularly if future economic downturns occur. They also suggest that the measure prioritizes firefighter benefits over broader financial responsibility.

Support Prop I is strongly supported by healthcare advocates, public safety unions, and organizations like SEIU Local 1021, as well as Supervisor Ahsha Safai, who introduced the measure. Registered nurses working in San Francisco’s Department of Public Health, alongside 911 dispatchers, have faced challenges with retention due to the city’s current pension structure. Prop I allows per diem nurses to purchase up to three years of service credit towards their retirement, incentivizing them to stay in full-time roles. Additionally, it moves 911 dispatchers into a higher-paying public safety retirement plan, matching them with firefighters and police officers, who are also classified as first responders. Proponents argue this will alleviate the staffing shortages in these critical positions, reduce reliance on costly temporary workers, and improve the overall emergency response system in the city. These changes, they claim, will make the city safer and attract more qualified professionals to serve in these essential roles.

​

Opposition: The opposition, which includes groups like the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, is concerned about the potential financial strain that Prop I could place on the city’s pension system. Critics argue that extending full retirement benefits to nurses and 911 dispatchers, who currently fall under the miscellaneous category of city workers, could lead to increased pension liabilities at a time when the city faces budget challenges. They warn that the increased pension costs could exacerbate the city’s financial difficulties without significantly addressing long-term staffing issues. Opponents also highlight that better training programs for dispatchers are already underway, making this change unnecessary. They assert that while 911 dispatchers perform essential work, their responsibilities do not carry the same physical risks as firefighters and police officers, and therefore their retirement benefits should not be equivalent.

Support Prop J has received widespread support from leaders and organizations focused on improving outcomes for children, youth, and families in San Francisco. Supporters include Supervisors Myrna Melgar, Hillary Ronen, Shamann Walton, Catherine Stefani, Ahsha Safai, Matt Dorsey, Joel Engardio, Dean Preston, Rafael Mandelman, and School Board Commissioners Jenny Lam and Alida Fisher. These supporters argue that Prop J is about transparency, efficiency, and accountability in how San Francisco allocates funding for children and youth services. The measure seeks to better coordinate between city departments and the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) by creating a unified plan to ensure that city resources are targeted effectively and that every dollar spent on children yields maximum results. Advocates emphasize that Prop J will help the city address growing unmet needs without raising taxes, using the existing budget to make strategic investments in programs that have the most impact. By aligning efforts and increasing transparency, Prop J ensures the city's commitment to improving outcomes for the next generation while making sure resources are used efficiently.

​

Opposition: There was no formal opposition submitted against Prop J. However, potential criticisms might focus on concerns about creating new bureaucratic processes or diverting funds from other essential services. Some opponents may argue that existing programs already provide the necessary coordination and that additional layers of oversight could complicate the delivery of services. Additionally, critics might raise concerns about whether the framework will have the flexibility to adapt to evolving needs over time. While the measure doesn’t raise taxes, skeptics could argue that better governance reforms are needed to tackle inefficiencies within the existing system rather than adding new processes.

Support Prop K aims to create a permanent park along the Upper Great Highway, transforming the space into a public coastal recreation area that provides easy access for pedestrians, cyclists, and families. Proponents, including Senator Scott Wiener, Supervisors Joel Engardio, Myrna Melgar, Ahsha Safaí, and Dean Preston, and Supervisor Candidate Jen Nossokoff, highlight that the pilot program for the weekend closures has proven highly popular, making the area the city’s third-most-visited park. Supporters argue that Prop K is a smart investment in the future, as it will both restore the coastal ecosystem and save taxpayers money by reducing the cost of maintaining the road. The measure also promises to boost local businesses by attracting more visitors to the area. Advocacy groups like Friends of Great Highway Park, Ocean Beach Park for All, and SPUR argue that Prop K creates a lasting legacy for future generations, providing much-needed open space for recreation in a city known for its natural beauty.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop K, including the Great Highway For All Committee, argue that the closure of the Upper Great Highway would worsen traffic congestion in nearby residential neighborhoods, shifting the burden to routes like Sunset Boulevard and 19th Avenue. Critics like Paul Kozakiewicz, publisher of the Richmond Review, and Josephine Zhao, President of the Chinese American Democratic Club, emphasize that the Great Highway serves as a vital thoroughfare for commuters, families, and people accessing essential services such as the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital. They also question the transparency of the measure’s planning process, noting that the pilot program is still under evaluation. Many local residents and community leaders argue that the current compromise—weekend closures and weekday access—strikes a better balance between recreation and transportation needs. Additionally, they warn that the measure offers no clear funding for maintaining the park or addressing ongoing sand removal issues.

Support Prop L is supported by a coalition of transit advocates, environmental groups, and political leaders, including San Francisco Transit Riders, Transform, Muni Diaries, SaveMUNI, and the Sierra Club. Local political figures such as Senator Scott Wiener, Supervisors Joel Engardio, Myrna Melgar, Matt Dorsey, and Dean Preston, and Supervisor candidate Jen Nossokoff are also vocal supporters. Prop L seeks to fund Muni services by imposing a tax on transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft, as well as autonomous vehicle businesses. This tax would not be passed directly to riders but would be a modest fee paid by these companies. Proponents argue that Prop L is critical to maintaining public transit service in the wake of federal pandemic relief funds running out. It is seen as a lifeline to prevent service cuts, keep Muni lines operational, and improve accessibility for seniors, disabled residents, and low-income individuals who rely heavily on public transportation. Supporters emphasize that Prop L does not increase property or sales taxes for residents, making it a fair way to sustain vital transit services in San Francisco.

​

Opposition: Opponents, including the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, California Nightlife Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, and TogetherSF Action, argue that Prop L places an undue burden on rideshare companies, which are often relied upon by individuals who cannot access Muni, especially during late-night hours. Critics like Rodney Fong, CEO of the SF Chamber of Commerce, warn that the measure could raise costs for consumers, indirectly affecting those who depend on affordable transportation options. The opposition argues that instead of imposing new taxes, the city should focus on reforming Muni’s operational inefficiencies and addressing its financial mismanagement. Additionally, they express concerns about Prop L lacking oversight and accountability measures, which could result in the funds being poorly allocated. Small business advocates and nightlife groups also oppose the measure, citing concerns that higher transportation costs could deter tourism and local economic activity.

Support Prop M is supported by a broad coalition of business and civic leaders who believe it is essential to revitalize San Francisco’s struggling economy. Key supporters include Mayor London Breed, Board President Aaron Peskin, Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Catherine Stefani, and Ahsha Safaí, as well as the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Hotel Council of San Francisco, and Google. Proponents argue that Prop M will provide immediate tax relief to over 2,700 small businesses, exempting many from paying city business taxes altogether. This is seen as a lifeline for businesses that have been hit hard by the pandemic, helping them to recover and avoid closures. In addition to reducing taxes for small businesses, Prop M aims to simplify the city’s complex business tax structure, making it easier to navigate and ensuring long-term economic stability. Supporters claim that without Prop M, rising taxes in 2025 will stifle recovery efforts, particularly in sectors like healthcare, hospitality, arts, and entertainment, which are vital to the city’s vibrancy and growth.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop M, including the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, argue that the measure places an unfair burden on larger businesses and is not a sustainable long-term solution to San Francisco’s economic challenges. Critics claim that the tax cuts disproportionately benefit small businesses at the expense of larger companies, which are crucial to the city’s economic infrastructure. They argue that Prop M does not do enough to address broader issues such as homelessness, rising crime, and the high cost of living, which continue to drive businesses and residents away. Opponents also express concerns that Prop M may lead to future tax increases to compensate for the shortfall in revenue, ultimately hurting the same businesses it claims to help. They believe that the city should focus on broader economic reforms rather than piecemeal tax breaks.

Support Prop N is supported by a coalition of political leaders and public safety organizations including Supervisors Catherine Stefani, Shamann Walton, Matt Dorsey, Joel Engardio, Connie Chan, and Ahsha Safai. Other backers include the San Francisco Police Officers Association, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Firefighters Local 798, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021, and San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto. Proponents argue that this measure is crucial to help address the staffing crisis across San Francisco's first responder units by offering student loan reimbursement up to $25,000 for firefighters, police officers, nurses, paramedics, and 911 dispatchers. They assert that financial hardship from student debt forces many skilled individuals to leave public service, exacerbating dangerous staffing shortages. By offering student loan forgiveness, Prop N aims to make San Francisco a more competitive and attractive place for prospective first responders in a highly competitive job market. Supporters contend that this measure will improve public safety across the city by helping to recruit and retain a robust and well-trained first responder workforce.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop N argue that the measure sets a concerning precedent by using taxpayer money to pay off personal debt, potentially opening the door for similar demands across other city departments. They point out that this approach does not address the root causes of financial hardship for first responders, such as rising education costs and inadequate compensation. Opponents also raise concerns about fiscal sustainability, noting that Prop N could lead to additional strains on the city budget, especially if funding for the program relies on future appropriations. Critics also highlight that offering loan forgiveness might skew recruitment towards individuals with higher student debt from private institutions, rather than public colleges, potentially resulting in less workforce diversity. Furthermore, they warn that the program could inadvertently incentivize early retirements, worsening the staffing shortages it aims to address.

Support Prop O has garnered strong support from reproductive rights organizations, healthcare providers, and political leaders, including Mayor London Breed, the San Francisco Women's Political Committee, and the San Francisco Young Democrats. Supporters argue that this measure is crucial for protecting and expanding access to reproductive healthcare, especially in the face of increasing threats at the national level. With the rollback of federal protections, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Prop O ensures San Francisco remains a safe haven for reproductive services, including access to safe and legal abortion. The measure guarantees continued funding for these services and provides legal protections for healthcare providers from out-of-state prosecutions. Advocates assert that Prop O not only defends reproductive rights but also establishes a comprehensive approach to reproductive health education, equipping individuals with the knowledge to make informed decisions. As a city known for leading on progressive issues, supporters believe Prop O is essential in upholding San Francisco’s legacy of protecting individual rights.

​

Opposition: Opponents of Prop O, including Pro-Life San Francisco, argue that the measure goes too far in promoting abortion services while discriminating against life-affirming healthcare facilities. They claim that the measure would require pro-life clinics to advertise abortion services, while abortion clinics would not be subject to similar requirements, creating an unequal burden. Critics also point to the creation of a designated fund for abortion services, which they believe prioritizes elective abortions over other essential healthcare services. Furthermore, opposition groups argue that Prop O seeks to establish new city-funded websites to highlight abortion clinics, which they view as an attempt to marginalize pregnancy resource centers that provide alternative support. The opposition contends that Prop O’s provisions could limit the services life-affirming clinics can provide and raise concerns about government overreach in healthcare decisions.