top of page


MAR 52024


NO on Prop F

"At the core of this debate is the treatment of addiction. The medical community widely recognizes addiction as a complex brain disorder, not a moral failing. Effective management of addiction typically requires a nuanced blend of medical, psychological and social support. By mandating treatment as a condition for welfare, Prop. F oversimplifies this complex issue at the expense of people who need care, not punishment. The requirement to accept treatment or face the loss of benefits places undue pressure on individuals who are not ready for treatment, which often leads to less effective outcomes or avoidance of support systems altogether." 

-Jen Nossokoff, Candidate for SF DCCC and Board Certified Physician Assistant


Support Proposition 1 garners support for addressing the acute shortage of mental health and substance use disorder treatment facilities and housing in California. Advocates, including the League of Pissed Off Voters, argue that the proposition's modification of existing taxes and the introduction of a $6.38 billion bond are essential steps toward expanding desperately needed services. They emphasize the bond's potential to fund approximately 11,000 more treatment beds and supportive housing units, acknowledging the state's dire need for more resources to assist those struggling with mental health and substance use disorders. Supporters argue that despite the proposition's complexities and potential imperfections, it offers a pragmatic approach to addressing a gaping hole in California's mental health infrastructure.

Opposition: Critics of Proposition 1, while not explicitly opposing the measure in the League of Pissed Off Voters' guide, express significant concerns about the proposition's potential implications. They worry about the possibility of funds being used for forced treatment programs and the shift in resources from existing services to those focusing on substance use disorder treatment and housing support. There's apprehension that the reallocation of funds could impact the availability of current services and that the legislation was crafted without sufficient input from those most affected by these services. Concerns also extend to the proposition's reliance on borrowing, raising questions about long-term financial sustainability and the prioritization of mental health and substance use disorder treatments.

State Proposition 1

Money for Behavioral Health and Treatment Beds

Support: Proposition A seeks to address San Francisco's acute affordable housing crisis by authorizing the city to borrow up to $300 million through a general obligation bond. This initiative is designed to fund the construction of new rental housing for extremely low-income, very low-income, and lower-income households, while also earmarking portions of the bond for preserving existing affordable housing and supporting victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. Advocates, including the Chronicle, highlight the proposal's potential to significantly increase the city's affordable housing stock, emphasizing the urgent need for dedicated shelter beds and housing for vulnerable populations. The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters underscores the environmental benefits, noting that facilitating more people to live closer to their work can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, aligning with the city's Climate Action Plan goals.

Prop A is widely supported among advocacy groups. 

Opposition: While the need for more affordable housing in San Francisco is widely acknowledged, there are concerns about the effectiveness and execution of Proposition A. Critics argue that while bonds can provide necessary funding for housing projects, they do not address the root causes of housing shortages, such as regulatory barriers and local opposition to new construction. There is also skepticism regarding the allocation and management of the funds, with some fearing that the money may not be spent efficiently or result in tangible increases in affordable housing units. Critics emphasize the need for comprehensive reforms that tackle the complexities of the housing market and call for more innovative solutions beyond financial measures.

Prop A

Affordable Housing Bond

Support: Proposition B was originally proposed by Supervisor Matt Dorsey with the intention of ensuring full staffing for the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) via the General Fund. However, an amendment added by Supervisor Ahsha Safaí made funding for police staffing minimums dependent upon new, voter-approved taxes; which supporters argue is reasonable, especially during a budget shortfall. Despite these changes, supporters contend that Proposition B still serves as a vital measure to address basic public safety needs in San Francisco, albeit with the condition of finding potential funding sources. They argue that Proposition B provides necessary support for salaries and recruiting efforts by the SFPD while also offering flexibility in allocating funds. Additionally, supporters advocate that funding allocated to Proposition B should not come at the expense of social welfare programs, recognizing the importance of maintaining a balance between public safety and social services.

Opposition: Together SF and the League of Pissed Off Voters both oppose Proposition B, but their reasons and approaches differ. Together SF focuses on the political process and the specific actions of Supervisor Ahsha Safaí in amending the proposition, which they view as undermining the original intent of the measure. They criticize the addition of a requirement for new taxes, which they refer to as a "Cop Tax," and assert that it defeats the purpose of the measure to ensure basic public safety needs are covered in San Francisco. On the other hand, the League of Pissed Off Voters takes a broader perspective, highlighting the potential negative consequences of Proposition B for policing reforms and social welfare programs. They emphasize concerns about the financial implications of the measure, including its reliance on expensive new taxes and its potential impact on the city's general fund. Additionally, they express skepticism about the necessity of reinstating minimum staffing requirements and raise questions about the discretion granted to the Police Department over a newly established fund. While both organizations oppose Proposition B, Together SF focuses on the specific actions of Supervisor Safaí, while the League of Pissed Off Voters takes a more comprehensive approach, considering the measure's broader implications for policing and social services in San Francisco.

Proposition B

Police Staffing and Funding

Support: Support for Proposition C centers on the potential benefits of converting vacant downtown office buildings into residential housing, aiming to revitalize San Francisco's downtown area and address the critical housing shortage. Proponents argue that by offering tax exemptions for such conversions, the city could encourage the development of much-needed housing units, potentially making downtown a more vibrant and lived-in area. This measure is seen as a way to make better use of the city's existing spaces, aligning with broader goals of increasing housing availability and density in urban areas. The supporters, including the Chronicle and the SF League of Conservation Voters, believe that incentivizing these conversions could also contribute to the city's economic recovery by bringing more residents and activity to downtown.

Opposition: Opposition to Proposition C is multi-faceted, with critics raising concerns about both the approach and potential consequences of the measure. The League of Pissed Off Voters, among others, opposes Proposition C, arguing that it provides undue tax breaks to developers at the expense of public funds that could otherwise be used for affordable housing and essential city services. They highlight the measure's potential to reduce revenue from property transfer taxes, which have been a significant source of funding for affordable housing initiatives. Furthermore, critics are wary of the clause allowing the Board of Supervisors to amend the transfer tax without voter approval, fearing it could undermine democratic decision-making and lead to further erosion of funds for public goods. The opposition contends that Proposition C prioritizes the interests of real estate developers over the broader needs of San Francisco residents, questioning the measure's effectiveness in truly addressing the housing crisis without explicit affordability requirements or guarantees.

Proposition C

Tax Breaks for Downtown Developers

Support: Proposition D is championed by the San Francisco Ethics Commission, aiming to refine the city's ethics laws in the aftermath of the Mohammed Nuru scandal. This measure seeks to close loopholes that have allowed corruption to flourish, including the indirect gift-giving and the exemption of personal relationship gifts from scrutiny. By expanding the definition of "restricted source" and introducing a more stringent disclosure requirement for gifts, Prop D endeavors to fortify the integrity of city operations. It also proposes extending ethics training to a broader range of city employees, emphasizing a collective responsibility towards upholding ethical standards. Supporters argue that Prop D is a crucial step towards restoring public trust in city government, making a clear statement against corruption by ensuring more transparency and accountability.

Opposition: Opposition to Proposition D has not been prominently voiced, indicating a general consensus on the necessity of tightening ethics rules in the city’s administration. However, concerns might arise from those wary of over-regulation or the practical implications of enforcing such comprehensive measures. Critics could argue that while the intention behind Prop D is commendable, its implementation might pose challenges, potentially complicating the day-to-day operations of city officials and employees. Skeptics might also question whether the proposed changes could inadvertently hinder well-meaning interactions between city officials and the public or between the city and its partners, suggesting a need for a balanced approach that guards against corruption without stifling productive collaboration.

Proposition D

Tighten City Ethics Rules

Support: Proposition E, aimed at modernizing the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) by allowing more autonomy in the use of surveillance technology, high-speed chases, and other policing methods, has garnered support from a range of public figures and organizations. Proponents argue that the measure will enhance public safety by enabling the police to use modern tools and strategies more effectively. Both Mayor London Breed and mayoral candidate Daniel Lurie, along with Supervisors Catherine Stefani, Joel Engardio, Matt Dorsey, and Rafael Mandelman, as well as business leaders like Chris Larsen (founder of Ripple Labs) and Ron Conway (a notable billionaire powerbroker), have voiced strong support for Prop E. Their backing highlights a shared belief that the proposition will reduce administrative burdens on officers, allowing them to spend more time on the streets and improve their capacity to solve crimes. Supporters also contend that the measure is a step toward equipping officers with 21st-century technology to combat crime more efficiently.

Opposition: Proposition E faces significant opposition from various community groups, civil liberties organizations, and legal associations who express concerns about the potential for increased police surveillance, misuse of technology, and the erosion of community oversight. Critics argue that the measure would remove critical checks on the SFPD’s use of surveillance and technology, potentially leading to abuses of power and violations of privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bar Association of San Francisco, and the League of Pissed Off Voters stand out among the opposition, highlighting fears that Prop E could reverse important police reforms, increase dangerous police chases, and decrease transparency. The opposition emphasizes that the current system, which requires SFPD to obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors before deploying new technology, serves as an essential safeguard against potential abuses. They warn that Prop E would undermine these safeguards, jeopardizing privacy rights and public safety, particularly for communities of color that have historically been subject to disproportionate police surveillance and force. emphasize the need for maintaining checks and balances on law enforcement authority

Proposition E

Tax Breaks for Downtown Developers

Support: Support for Proposition F is grounded in the belief that integrating mandatory drug screening and treatment for recipients of the County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) will address public safety and public health concerns related to drug addiction among welfare recipients. Proponents argue that this measure ensures responsible use of taxpayer dollars by tying welfare benefits to participation in drug treatment programs, aiming to facilitate recovery and reduce drug dependency among San Francisco's vulnerable populations. High-profile supporters of Prop F include Mayor London Breed, who has been vocal about her commitment to tackling the city's drug crisis through more stringent policies. Additionally, Supervisor Matt Dorsey, who has shared his personal experiences with substance abuse recovery, supports the measure, alongside Supervisors Rafael Mandelman and Catherine Stefani. This coalition views Prop F as a necessary step toward improving public health outcomes and ensuring the welfare system supports recovery and rehabilitation rather than enabling addiction.

Opposition: Proposition F faces significant opposition from various community leaders, healthcare professionals, and advocacy groups, who criticize the measure for potentially exacerbating San Francisco's homelessness crisis and for its punitive approach to addiction treatment. Critics, including Jen Nossokoff, a candidate for Supervisor and a licensed medical professional, argue that mandatory treatment infringes on individual autonomy and fails to recognize addiction as a complex health issue requiring a voluntary and comprehensive approach. Legal and constitutional concerns have also been raised, suggesting that mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients could violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. Organizations such as the ACLU and local social justice advocates have voiced their opposition, emphasizing the measure's potential to harm rather than help those struggling with substance abuse. They argue that Prop F does not adequately address the underlying causes of addiction and may lead to increased homelessness and reliance on emergency services, pushing for a rejection of the measure in favor of more compassionate and effective solutions.

Proposition F

Substance Abuse Screening for Welfare Recipients

Support Proposition G coalesces around the objective of reinstating Algebra 1 in the eighth-grade curriculum of the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), aiming to rectify perceived educational missteps and disparities. Proponents argue that the absence of Algebra 1 in middle school detracks students at a critical juncture, hindering their progression into advanced mathematics. SF Parent Action champions the "Yes" vote, highlighting that the district's well-meaning detracking efforts inadvertently widened the educational gap, particularly disadvantaging low-income Black and Latino students. They note the inequity created as higher-income students could access private math tutoring, further entrenching disparities. With SFUSD having initiated steps to reintroduce Algebra 1, supporters view Prop G as a vital push to expedite and solidify this change, ensuring all students have equal opportunities to pursue advanced mathematical studies. The measure has garnered support from a variety of stakeholders within the community, including educators, parents, and organizations committed to educational equity and excellence.

Opposition: The League of Pissed Off Voters' opposition to Proposition G is rooted in their critique of its potential ineffectiveness and the broader implications of direct public intervention in educational curricula. They view Prop G as a non-binding, advisory measure that unnecessarily inserts public opinion into complex educational policy decisions without any legal authority to enforce change. This perspective is based on the belief that educational strategies, especially those as critical as math curriculum development, should be left to educational experts and the school district, which has the expertise and jurisdiction to make informed decisions. The League's stance underscores a concern that Prop G might exacerbate ongoing cultural and political battles over school policies, distracting from substantive, expert-led efforts to improve educational outcomes. They argue that the proposition fails to address the root causes of educational disparities and could mislead voters into thinking they are contributing to a solution that falls outside the purview of what ballot measures can realistically achieve. This opposition reflects a broader skepticism about the role of ballot measures in shaping nuanced and effective educational policies.

Proposition G

Algebra in 8th Grade


Financial disclosures are available at

Generative AI used in accordance with San Francisco AI guidelines to ensure responsible use

bottom of page