In partnership with Oakland Rising, San Francisco Rising, and Silicon Valley Rising


propNameBay Rising’s PositionDescriptionAnalysisSupportersOpponents
Prop 51Bond for Building & Upgrading Schools No position$9 billion in state bonds to fund the improvement and construction of school facilities, with priority given to districts that can start projects quickly.Our public schools are due for upgraded or new facilities. Unfortunately, this proposition isn't written in a way that would foster equity and even the playing field. It's written in a way that would benefit wealthier schools. We know that poorer schools are the most run down, and we think they should be first in line to receive upgrades. We would enthusiastically support a measure that does that, but our reservations about this measure prevent us from endorsing it.Yes on 51 supporters here including California Labor Federation, California Taxpayers Association, California Democratic Party, California Republican PartyCalifornia Taxpayers Action Network and Governor Jerry Brown
Prop 52Voter Approval for Changes to Hospital FeesNo positionCalifornia currently requires hospitals to pay a fee that funds the state's share of benefits for federal MediCal funds to provide healthcare to low-income children and adults. This fee provides stable income for hospitals providing MediCal benefits. Prop 52 would make the fee permanent (instead of requiring approval of the legislature), increase the required vote to a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature to cancel the fee, and require approval from statewide voters instead of the legislature to make any changes in the fee.MediCal programs are very important, but Prop 52 is not about these programs ' it's about who should have oversight of how the programs are funded. The state legislature regularly approves the hospital fee, so restricting their authority to change it and instead requiring a statewide ballot initiative to make changes is not a good way to make decisions ' and also potentially benefits healthcare companies most. Instead of taking away their oversight, the legislature should retain the ability to change the fee as part of their budget management responsibilities.Yes on 52 supporters here including California Medical Association, California Labor FederationService Employees International Union ' United Healthcare Workers West
Prop 53Voter Approval of Revenue BondsNoRequires a statewide vote to approve any revenue bonds that exceed $2 billion. Revenue bonds are repaid by charging fees on users of a project, such as charging a toll on a highway.Funded by Dean Cortopassi, a right-wing millionaire farmer from Stockton who opposes government projects, this proposition would make it harder for state and local governments to borrow money to finance big infrastructure projects, and would require that even local projects be approved by voters statewide. It restricts the government from implementing public works projects, and there is no exemption for emergencies or natural disasters , which could slow down rebuilding required after emergencies. Dean Cortopassi. Cortopassi has personally spent over $4 million pushing Prop 53 to advance his own agenda.No on 53 supporters here including California Labor Federation, California Chamber of Commerce, California Medical Association, Association of California Water Agencies, California State NAACP
Prop 54Advance Notice for State LegislationNoRequires that state legislation be printed and available online for public review at least three days before a vote, with exceptions for public emergencies.We strongly support government transparency, yet believe that this allows corporate interest to stall progressive efforts in the legislature. Since big corporations -- unlike community groups -- have the resources to mobilize massive forces in a three day period, we see this as a campaign tool for big money against progressive legislators and policies. Yes on 54 supporters here including California Business Roundtable, First Amendment Coalition, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. Charles Munger Jr, a Republican and son of a billionaire, has provided major funding for Prop 54, which has raised over $10 million.No on 54 supporters here including California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation
Prop 55Tax the 1% to Fund Education and HealthcareYes, Yes, Yes!!!Raises $5-11 billion annually for K-12 schools and community colleges and up to $2 billion per year for Medi-Cal by extending the personal income tax increases from Prop 30 (2012) for 12 more years. Affects roughly 1.5% of taxpayers with the highest incomes.Prop 55 extends an income tax on the wealthiest Californians making over $250,000 per year to pay for critical support for state education and healthcare, and it eliminates Prop 30's regressive sales tax. Not passing this would cut education funding by $4 billion per year and put education and healthcare services for low-income Californians in jeopardy. We believe that the wealthiest Californians should pay their share to protect education for our children. The funds from Prop 55 go directly to classrooms, not to bureaucracy and administration.Yes on 55 supporters here including California Labor Federation, California Teachers Association, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CaliforniaHoward Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Prop 56Tax Cigarettes to Pay for HealthcareYesIncreases tobacco tax by $2 per pack, and equivalent increases for other tobacco products and e-cigarettes. Estimated revenue of $1.1 to $1.6 billion annually to fund medical research, healthcare and tobacco prevention programs.Funding from Prop 56 will improve existing healthcare programs and pay for cancer research and stopping the marketing of cigarettes to young people. Only smokers will pay this tax. Of course, we'd also like to see taxes on luxury items like yachts and vacation properties, but those aren't on the ballot yet. The opposition to Prop 56 is bankrolled largely by big tobacco companies such as Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds and they have spent more than $50 million to blanket the airwaves with deceptive ads.Yes on 56 supporters here including the American Cancer Society, California Labor Federation, PICO California, American Lung AssociationNo on 56 supporters here including Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Taxpayers Association, California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Prop 57Reforms for Broken Parole & Juvenile Justice SystemsYes, Yes, Yes!!! Requires that juveniles have a hearing before a judge before being sentenced as an adult. Allows for earlier parole consideration for people convicted of non-violent felonies, and allows sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements. California still has a major prison overcrowding problem, and we are under a federal mandate to reduce the prison population. Prop 57 will save millions of dollars a year that could go towards community crime prevention programs. As we continue to focus on a comprehensive approach to public safety and reforming the criminal justice system, Prop 57 is an important step forward. We see this proposition as a pathway to stronger policies that promote community-based care, rehabilitation and healing.Yes on 57 supporters here including California Labor Federation, California Calls, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)No on 57 supporters here including California Police Chiefs Association, California Homeowners Association
Prop 58Allow Multi-lingual EducationYes, Yes, Yes!!!Repeals parts of Prop 227 (1998) that banned multilingual education from public schools.Prop 58 will strengthen our education system and improve students' language comprehension skills, by allowing them to learn languages with a multilingual approach. Prop 227 went against our core values of diversity and inclusion. We strongly support its repeal.Yes on 58 supporters here including California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, Association of California School Administrators, California State Parent Teachers AssociationCalifornia Republican Party
Prop 59Get Big Money out of PoliticsYesAsks voters whether California should push for a federal constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010), which permits unlimited corporate spending with little transparency for federal candidates.While Prop 59 does not change the constitution, it is crucial that we stand against corporate control and big money in politics that attempt to silence our voices on the issues that matter the most in our communities.Yes on 59 supporters here including Courage Campaign, California Church Impact, California Teachers AssociationJeff Stone, State Senator
Prop 60Condoms & Adult FilmsNo positionRequires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse.We value safety for all workers, but Prop 60 could have a mixed impact on workers. After a short complaint process, Prop 60 would allow any California resident to sue anyone with an undefined 'financial interest' in a film for violations. Since many actors in adult films have some sort of financial interest, their real names and addresses could be revealed in court documents, and subject them to harassment and discrimination from stalkers, fanatical fans and hate groups.Yes on 60 supporters here including AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California State Association of Occupational Health NursesNo on 60 supporters here including Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, AIDS Project Los Angeles, Transgender Law Center, Equality California, California Democratic Party, California Republican Party.
Prop 61Stop Pharmaceutical Price GougingYesProhibits state agencies from paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.With drug prices and pharmaceutical company profits soaring, we support efforts to reign in price gouging. Prop 61 creates significant savings for the state budget, but does not help people who buy medicine directly. We value health care as a human right, and this a solid step in that direction.Yes on 61 supporters here including California Nurses Association, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Breast Care ActionNo on 61 supporters here including California Medical Association, California NAACP, Veterans of Foreign Wars - California
Prop 62Abolish the Death PenaltyYes, Yes, Yes!!!Bans the death penalty and replaces it with a life sentence without the possibility of parole.We strongly support overhauling the current criminal justice system. Prop 62 is one part of the necessary change: repealing the death penalty is important because it disproportionately impacts people of color, carries the unacceptable risk of executing a person innocent of the crime they are accused of, and would save the state an estimated $150 million annually. It's a step that's long overdue. However, partners including the California Coalition of Women Prisoners and Critical Resistance criticize converting sentences to “Life Without Parole” (LWOP) which they say is also racist, classist and ableist, condemns many innocent people to a slow living death, and neither deters violence nor promotes rehabilitation. Both the death penalty and LWOP should be recognized as unjust and eliminated.Yes on 62 supporters here including ACLU California, California Labor Federation, California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)No on 62 supporters here including California Police Chiefs Association, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California State Sheriffs' Association
Prop 63Bullet (not Gun) ControlNoBans possession of large capacity ammunition magazines and requires individuals to pass background checks to purchase bullets.Gun violence is an issue that impacts our everyday lives and we recognize the critical need for comprehensive gun control. However, instead of targeting gun purchases, Prop 63 only addresses in-store (ignoring the widely available online) purchase of ammunition. It is not a substitute for more comprehensive protections against gun violence. This bill would also repeal some of the gains made by Prop 47 and revert misdemeanors back to felonies. We worked hard to get Prop 47 passed and implemented, and don't want to see it turned back.Yes on 63 supporters here including Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, California Council of Churches IMPACTNo on 63 supporters here including Congress of Racial Equality, National Rifle Association, California Police Chiefs Association
Prop 64Legalize MarijuanaNo positionLegalizes recreational marijuana, taxes retail sales of marijuana at 15%, and taxes cultivation. Authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions. Estimated tax revenue of up to $1 billion annually to fund substance abuse prevention and treatment.While people of color have been the most negatively impacted by drug laws, legalization has systemically excluded us from sharing in the benefits. Wiping out past marijuana convictions is a good thing, but although studies have shown that all youth smoke marijuana at similar rates, arrest rates for youth of color have risen dramatically in Colorado post-legalization. Also, the impact on poor neighborhoods is uncertain: with no limit on how many stores can open in an area or who owns them, a flood of marijuana shops owned by those outside the community could arise, leaving poor communities with pot shops and liquor stores, but no grocery stores.Yes on 64 suppporters here including ACLU of California, California State NAACP, California Medical AssociationNo on 64 supporters here including California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Peace Officers Association, California District Attorneys Association
Prop 65Plastic Industry's Attempt to Confuse Voters and Undermine Plastic Bag BanNoRequires that plastic bag fees go to environmental programs instead of being kept by retailers.We support the ban of single use plastic bags (see Prop 67). This measure is supported by the plastic bag industry -- led by four out-of-state plastic bag manufacturers -- to create voter confusion and decrease political support for the ban (since retailers can no longer keep associated fees in Prop 65, they have no financial reason to support a ban).Out-of-state plastic bag manufacturers: Society of the Plastics Industry (Hilex Poly Co., LLC, Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Advanced Polybag, Inc. and Superbag)Surfrider Foundation, Clean Water Action, League of Women Voters of California
Prop 66Reduced Protections for Death Row InmatesNoLimits the appeals and petition process challenging death penalty convictions, making the timeline between conviction and execution quicker. We support Prop 62 to abolish the death penalty. We oppose reducing the rights and protections of prisoners.Yes on 66 supporters here including California Police Chiefs Association, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California State Sheriffs' AssociationNo on 66 supporters here including PICO California, California Calls, ACLU of California, Amnesty International USA, California NAACP, California Labor Federation
Prop 67Support Plastic Bag BanYesReferendum to uphold a state law restricting single-use plastic bags.We support the ban on single-use plastic bags. This Proposition upholds a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. It pushes back on out-of-state plastic bag manufacturers who are trying to weaken our environmental laws.Yes on 67 supporters here including California State Conference NAACP, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, California League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club California, Ocean ConservancyOut-of-state plastic bag manufacturers: Society of the Plastics Industry (Hilex Poly Co., LLC, Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Advanced Polybag, Inc. and Superbag)


.NameBay Rising's PositionDescription AnalysisSupporters Opponents
Alameda, Contra Costa & San Francisco Measure RR BART Improvement BondsYesIssues $3.5 billion in bonds for BART to prevent breakdowns, relieve overcrowding, and improve infrastructure.BART has neglected its maintenance and capital needs for too long and the impact has been dangerous and inconvenient for riders, and also threatens a critical service for working people. The Bay Area is heavily dependent on BART to move workers and tourists around quickly and safety, and this bond measure will support the improvements to create a more reliable system.Yes on RR endorsements here including many unions, community groups and business organizations such as the League of Women Voters Bay Area, Sierra Club, TransForm, IBEW Local 595 and the SF Chamber of Commerce.Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), East Bay Times Editorial Board
Alameda & Contra Costa CountiesMeasure C1Preserve AC Transit Services by Extending the Current Parcel TaxYesEnsure continued funding for AC Transit by extending the existing $8/year parcel tax at current levels (no increase) for another 20 yearsThis Measure simply renews the existing tax, and will not increase taxes, allowing for continued bus service for many parts of the East Bay that are not accessible by BART.Yes on C1 endorsements here including Alameda Labor Council, Asian Pacific Democratic Caucus of Alameda County, League of Women Voters, Bay Area, Sierra Club-SF Bay Chapter.East Bay Times Editorial Board


.NameBay Rising's PositionDescription AnalysisSupporters Opponents
Alameda CountyMeasure A1Fund Affordable Housing in Alameda CountyYesAuthorizes Alameda County to sell $580 million in bonds for the purchase or improvement of affordable housing for low-income households, veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities. Funds may be used to help low and moderate income households to purchase homes.Unaffordable housing is the main driver displacing people of color from the Bay Area currently. This bond measure won't solve the crisis, but it will generate significant funding to make housing more affordable for vulnerable populations, including creating down payment assistance and assistance for low-income seniors to continue living safely in their homes.Yes on A1 supporters here including many unions, faith groups and community-based organizations.None listed at time of publication.
Alameda CountyMeasure G1Support Oakland TeachersYes$120 parcel tax to be used to attract and retain teachers (by increasing salaries) and to enhance middle school offerings such as music, art, languages and other programs in both public and charter schools.Oakland Unified School District teachers do not earn enough to live in Oakland, and salary increases would help retain experienced educators and strengthen the school system. This Measure will also provide stable funding for stronger and more diverse middle school programs. However, the fact that charter schools will receive funds raises concerns. The local California Teachers Association affiliate is taking a neutral position on the Measure. Yes on G1 supporters here including Alameda County Central Labor Council and Alameda County Democratic Party.None listed at time of publication.
City of AlamedaMeasure L1Landlords' Attempt to Weaken Tenants' RightsNoAllows evictions without cause, doesn't cap rent increases, and reinforces a mediation process staffed by appointees of the city mayor. Undermining rent control measures disrupts the community by forcing working families, seniors and other vulnerable populations out of Alameda. City Council placed this measure on the ballot at the request of landlords and realtors. In the past, the mayor's appointees for the mediation process have allowed nearly 8% average rent increases.Alamedans for Fair Rent ControlAlameda Renters Coalition
City of AlamedaMeasure M1Protect Tenants' Rights! Rent Control & Eviction ProtectionYes, Yes, Yes!!!Ends evictions without cause, ties rent adjustments to inflation, creates an elected Rent Board, and provides exemptions for in-law units.Put on the ballot by over 7000 renters and members of community organizations in Alameda, Measure M1 preserves neighborhoods by making rents more affordable for working families, seniors and other vulnerable populations. Landlords and property managers have already spent over $750,000 to defeat pass Measure L1 and defeat Measure M1.Alameda Renters Coalition, Filipino Advocates for Justice, Alameda Labor Council, Alameda County Democratic Party Central Committee, Alameda Progressives, East Bay Young Democrats, Renewed Hope. See full list here for Fair Rent Control, California Apartment Association, KW Multi-family management group, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Woodmont Real Estate Services, Mountain View Housing Council
Berkeley Measure U1Raise Taxes on Big Landlords to Fund Affordable Housing!YesIncreases Rental Unit Business License Tax by 1.8% on landlords who rent out more than 5 units, prohibits landlords from passing the increase on to tenants, and directs Berkeley Housing Advisory Commission to oversee how money is spent and develop recommendations to increase affordable housing and prevent homelessness.Crafted through an open community process spanning months to develop a solution to the housing crisis, this measure sponsored unanimously by Berkeley City Council will tax the rental income of big landlords to provide funding for affordable housing. Measure U1 is expected to raise up to $3.5 million annually, increasing over time as rent increases.Berkeley City Council, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, East Bay Housing Organizations, Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency, Berkeley Tenants Union, the Sierra Club, Tenants Together, Berkeley Citizens Action, the Berkeley Progressive Alliance. See list here['id=1124]Berkeley Property Owners' Association
Berkeley Measure DDLandlords' Attempt to Undermine Measure U1NoIncreases Rental Unit Business License Tax by 0.42% on landlords who rent out more than 3 units, and creates a citizen council to advise on homelessness and affordable housing.Aiming to confuse voters and protect their profits, big landlords -- through the Berkeley Property Owners' Association -- spent $65,000 to gather signatures and compete with Measure U1. Expected to raise up to $1.4 million annually, it would save big landlords $2 million per year compared to what they would pay under Measure U1. Also gets them a seat at the table to advise on homelessness and affordable housing instead of having City agencies craft a plan.Berkeley Property Owners' AssociationBerkeley Rent Stabilization Board, Committee for Safe & Affordable Homes, Sierra Club-SF Bay Chapter
Berkeley Measure AAStrengthen Rights of Tenants Facing EvictionYesStrengthen tenants' rights by prohibiting evictions of families with children during the school year, raising relocation assistance requirements to $15,000 for owner move-ins, and clarifying protections for seniors and differently-abled tenants.As the housing crisis deepens, this is an important measure to protect families who rent, all renters in owner-move-in situations and renters from other vulnerable populations. Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, Sierra Club-SF Bay Chapter,None listed at time of publication.
City of OaklandMeasure HHTax on Distributing Sugar-Sweetened BeveragesYesImposes a 1 cent per ounce tax on big companies that distribute sugar-sweetened beverages, exempting milk products, 100% juice, baby formula, diet drinks and small businesses.Communities of color are over-burdened by health costs related to obesity and diabetes, brought on by decades of aggressive targeting by soda companies. These companies also receive millions of dollars in indirect and direct federal funds in the form of subsidies, and are spending over $9.5 million to defeat this measure in Oakland. Enough is enough. This proposition would encourage our communities to consume healthier drinks like water and would generate an estimated $6-8 million per year to find programs that improve children's health.Yes on HH supporters here including American Academy of Pediatrics - California, California Medical Association, La Clinica de la Raza.American Beve
City of OaklandMeasure IIExtend Leases for City LandYesExtends maximum lease terms of city-owned property from 66 to 99 years, making it easier for developers to get financing for their projects.Although many development projects will not further our goal for a more equitable city, affordable housing developers are likely to benefit from this measure as well, and affordable housing is a major priority for our city right now.None listed at time of publication.None listed at time of publication.
City of OaklandMeasure JJProtect Oakland Renters!Yes, Yes, Yes!!!Extends renters' protections by requiring landlords to request approval from the city before increasing rents by more than the cost of living adjustment, and extending just-cause eviction requirements to include more of the city's rental units.This is an important step to address the displacement of low-income communities of color from Oakland. It requires that landlords petition the City if they want to raise rents by more than the inflation rate instead of making tenants responsible for challenging these rent increases, and brings more of the city's housing stock under Just Cause eviction protections. Since Oakland rents are the third highest in the country and public servants like teachers can no longer afford to live in Oakland, we must strengthen rental protections to support working families and preserve Oakland's diversity.Yes on JJ supporters here including Committee to Protect Oakland Renters, Causa Justa:Just Cause, Alameda Labor CouncilThere is no formal opposition to Measure JJ.
City of OaklandMeasure KKBonds for Oakland infrastructureNo positionAuthorizes a $600 million bond for Oakland to upgrade city infrastructure. $350 million would be dedicated to road repairs, $150 million to upgrade city facilities, such as libraries, parks, and fire stations; and $100 million for affordable housing.Although Oakland's city infrastructure needs additional investment, the most urgent issues facing the city are not sufficiently reflected in this bond measure's spending priorities. The portion dedicated to affordable housing should be much larger, and with City Council deciding on how the funds will be allocated, there is no guarantee that spending on city infrastructure will be equitable and prioritize Oakland's low-income communities.Yes on KK supporters here including Alameda Labor Council, East Bay Housing Organizations, PolicyLink. None listed at time of publication.
City of OaklandMeasure LLCommission to Slightly Oversee the Police Yes with hesitationEstablishes a commission of civilians to oversee the police department (with the power to dismiss the Police Chief, and to discipline or terminate officers for particular kinds of infractions) and creates a Community Police Review Agency to investigate complaints of police misconduct and recommend discipline.In light of the decades of police abuses -- especially targeting people of color -- within the Oakland Police Department and the reluctance of the Mayor and City Council to address the issues, there is a clear need for stronger civilian oversight of the OPD. While this measure is a step in the right direction, we are clear that this isn't enough. We're concerned about how much power this Measure still gives the Mayor in making appointments to the commission. We would also like to see a commission that challenges Oakland's failed method of binding arbitration to resolve disciplinary issues, which has been strongly criticized by a federal court-appointed investigator because it waters down or erases disciplinary measures against officers in a majority of cases.Yes on LL supporters here including Alameda Labor Council, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), Alan Blueford Justice Center.Oakland Police Officers Association


.NameBay Rising's PositionDescription AnalysisSupporters Opponents
Contra Costa Transportation AuthorityMeasure XIncrease Sales Tax by 0.5% to Improve TransportationYes Increases sales tax by 0.5% for the next 30 years to raise revenue to fix roads, improve highways, improve BART, enhance transit access for seniors and people with disabilities, and improve bike safety. Expected to raise $97 million per year.Effective, affordable and comprehensive public transit is critical for working families in the Bay Area and is an important part of climate justice. While this measure does not specify how much of the money raised must go towards public transportation improvement versus highway improvement, we still feel that it is necessary to support increased funds for BART, bus and bicycle access. Yes on X supporters here including California Alliance for Jobs, Bike East Bay, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Contra Costa Taxpayers AssociationTransportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund
City of RichmondMeasure LProtect Tenants' Rights - Rent Control & Just Cause EvictionYes, Yes, Yes!!!Establishes rent control, a rent board and just cause eviction protections. Last year, Richmond became the first California city in 30 years to pass rent control, but backed down and suspended the ordinance after the California Apartment Association launched a repeal effort. Passing Measure L is necessary to re-establish rent control in Richmond and provide affordable housing and tenant protections for working families.Richmond Progressive Alliance, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), SEIU Local 1021.California Apartment Association


.NameBay Rising's PositionDescription AnalysisSupporters Opponents
Santa Clara CountyMeasure AAffordable Housing BondYesCreates $950 million in bonds to go toward creating affordable housing for children, veterans, people with disabilities, working families, seniors and thousands of others in need. The bonds are subject to independent civilian oversight and regular audits.Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, healthy, affordable home. This affordable housing measure will generate $950 million towards the actual brick and mortar construction of thousands of affordable housing opportunities for our most vulnerable populations. The measure will house homeless veterans, seniors facing housing insecurities and put struggling families with children in a safe and affordable home. Measure A is supported by more than 130 elected officials from every city and jurisdiction throughout Santa Clara County and endorsed by more than 100 organizations reflecting a broad base of support that includes health care providers, homeless advocacy groups, businesses, labor, teachers, veterans and environmental organizations.Yes on A supporters here including Working Partnerships USA, Health Trust, Habitat for Humanity Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley RisingThere is no formal opposition to Measure A.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityMeasure BFinish BART Extension and Improve Transportation by Half-cent Sales Tax IncreaseYesCreates a 30-year, half-cent sales tax increase to finish BART extension to downtown San Jose, improve bike/pedestrian safety, improve Caltrain, relieve traffic on freeways, and fix streets.The Transportation Justice Alliance (TJA), a broad network of more than 16 organizations and the community ' including environmentalists, working families, transit, land use and housing advocates, seniors, persons with disabilities, service providers and residents, were heavily engaged in the process to craft a robust and community-informed sales tax proposal. The TJA solicited meaningful input from more than 2,500 residents and transit riders about their transit needs, preferences and challenges. This input was used to ensure specific expenditure items noted in the proposed tax were equity-driven.Working Partnerships USA, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), TransForm, San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, Mathew Mahood (president and CEO of San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce), Silicon Valley RisingSilicon Valley Taxpayers Association
City of San JoseMeasure EThe Opportunity to Work Initiative: Give Part-Time Workers Access to Hours Yes, Yes, Yes!!!Provides San Jose hourly workers with the opportunity to work more hours so they can earn enough to pay their bills and put food on the table for their families. It would require medium and large companies to offer additional work hours to current qualified part-time workers FIRST before hiring new part-time employees.San Jose has a crisis of underemployment. 64,000 workers ' 43% of hourly wage earners ' have part-time or variable schedules at their main job. Even if they are paid a decent wage, it's impossible to afford Silicon Valley's sky-high living costs if they can only get a few hours of work. By ensuring medium and large businesses offer hours to their current qualified workers before hiring more part-timers, Measure E will help hourly employees make enough to put food on the table for their families.South Bay Labor Council, California Nurses Association, Working Partnerships USA, Silicon Valley RisingSan Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, San Jose Downtown Association
City of Mountain ViewMeasure VProtect Tenants' Rights - Rent Control & Just Cause Eviction ProtectionYes, Yes, Yes!!!Establishes rent control (2- 5% annual increases allowed, depending on consumer price index) & just cause eviction.This measure helps preserve neighborhoods, support working families and maintain a stronger community by making rent more affordable and regulated, and preventing landlords from evicting tenants without cause. Yes on V endorsements here including the South Bay Labor Council, California Nurses Association, Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, and the Mountain View Tenants CoalitionCalifornia Apartment Association, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
City of Mountain ViewMeasure WWeak Tenant Protections & No Limits on Rent IncreasesNoNo limits on rent increases, allows arbitrators to rule on rent increases above 5%Put on the ballot by Mountain View City Council after the stronger Measure V qualified, it is a weak alternative to Measure V. Contains a loophole allowing eviction for any reason, and doesn't specify who the arbitrators are who rule on rent increases, possibly landlords.Mountain View City CouncilNone listed at time of publication


.NameBay Rising's PositionDescription AnalysisSupporters Opponents
City of BurlingameMeasure RProtect Tenants' Rights - Rent Control & Just Cause EvictionYes, Yes, Yes!!!Establishes rent control (maximum increase of 4% per year for most multi-family residences), just cause eviction protection, and a commission to enact the rules.Helps working families stay in their homes and communities by making rental units more affordable.Yes on R list of supporters here including San Mateo County Central Labor Council, Faith in Action Bay Area, Tenants Together, Burlingame Advocates for Renter Protections League of Women Voters North & Central San Mateo CountyCalifornia Apartment Association
City of East Palo AltoMeasure JAmendments to Previous Renter Protection MeasureYesStrengthen compliance with notice requirements before a landlord can evict, create cost-savings by simplifying registration procedures, and prevent landlords from passing through fees to tenants.This is a fix to the earlier renter protection ordinance passed in 2010. Community members support these amendments.Envision, Transform, and Build East Palo Alto (ETB EPA) CoalitionNone listed at time of publication
City of East Palo Alto Measure OBusiness Tax on LandlordsYes Impose a one and a half percent (1.5%) tax of gross receipts on owners of five or more residential rental units and prohibiting the pass-through of the tax to tenants.Funding raised by this tax on big landlords would be used to increase affordable housing and prevent homelessness and displacement, helping to preserve neighborhoods, support working families and maintain a diverse community.None listed at time of publicationNone listed at time of publication
City of San MateoMeasure QProtect Tenants' Rights! Rent Control & Just Cause EvictionYes, Yes, Yes!!!Cap rent increases, prevent people from being evicted without just cause, establish an annual rental housing fee and require the council to create a Rental Housing Commission to oversee enforcement Rent control and eviction protections are needed to preserve communities by providing affordable rents for working families.Faith in Action Bay Area, San Mateo Central Labor Council, League of Women Voters North & Central San Mateo County, San Mateo County DemocratsCalifornia Apartment Association, San Mateo County Association of Realtors


PropNameBay Rising's PositionDescription AnalysisSupporters Opponents
San Francisco Unified School DistrictPROP AFunding for San Francisco SchoolsYesAllows SF Unified School District to raise up to $744 million in bonds for different projects including new school construction or relocation and seismic upgrades.Safe and well-maintained public schools are very important for San Francisco children. This school bond would ensure funding for many immediate needs in our schools and for more significant investments, like building new schools or relocating present schools. If it passes, SF Rising member organizations would need to continue advocating so these new resources are fairly allocated.San Francisco Unified School District, SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, San Francisco Chronicle, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, SF Democratic Party, SF Green PartyThe Libertarian Party of San Francisco
City of San FranciscoPROP BRenew Parcel Tax to Fund City CollegeYesProvides a stable source of funding for City College of SF by increasing the existing $79 annual parcel tax to $99 per year for 15 years (extending the current parcel tax sunset until 2032).This modest parcel tax increase and extension would help fund City College, an important institution for many San Franciscans of color. Ideally the parcel tax would exclude low-income property owners, but we still believe this is a good way to invest in the education of San Francisco.San Francisco Community College Board, SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters??
City of San FranciscoPROP CLoans to Buy and Fix Affordable Housing Yes, Yes, Yes!!!Expand purpose of existing bond program to provide loans to acquire and improve at-risk multi-unit residential buildings, making them permanent affordable housingBy updating a 24-year old proposition, this measure would allow the City to loan out money from municipal bonds for buying and upgrading multi-unit buildings (like SROs), creating and preserving desperately-needed affordable housing.Yes on C supporters here including SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, SF Supervisors Peskin and BreedSF Green Party
City of San FranciscoPROP DAllow Voters to Elect District Supervisors in Case of a VacancyYesRequire a special election if there is a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors and it is more than 180 days until a scheduled election. Requires the mayor to appoint an interim supervisor (who will be unable to run for that position in the election) to fill vacancy until election is held.Currently the mayor fills vacancies in the Board of Supervisors by appointment. These replacements stay in office until the next election, up to 2 years, and can then run as incumbents. This measure would balance the power at City Hall by still allowing the Mayor to appoint a replacement (who would not be able to run for their seat) and require a special election to ensure all Supervisors are elected by their fellow San Franciscans, all the time.SF Tenants Union, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters, SF Green Party, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, Former Mayor Art Agnos, Supervisors Avalos, Mar, Campos, Kim, Peskin, and Yee. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, former Mayors Dianne Feinstein, Willie Brown, Frank Jordan and Gavin Newsom, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
City of San FranciscoPROP EStreet Tree Maintenance Becomes a City Responsibility AgainYesShifts burden of maintaining street trees from property owners back to the City by creating a Street Tree Maintenance Fund with an annual budget of $19 million from the General Fund.By shifting the burden of tree maintenance back to the city, this proposition will ensure working-class property owners stop seeing trees as an expensive burden and begin seeing them as common community assets. This will benefit the environment of all San Franciscans.Yes on E supporters here SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, Friends of the Urban Forest committee, Supervisors Avalos, Wiener, and Mar.None listed at time of publication
City of San FranciscoPROP FAllow Youth to Vote in Municipal ElectionsYes, Yes, Yes!!!Will allow 16- and 17- year olds to vote in municipal elections.Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections would give this important constituency a say on many issues that impact them and their families daily. It would foster civic engagement earlier, particularly in communities of color, which make up the majority of San Francisco youth.Vote 16 (A Diverse Coalition to Expand Voting Rights) -, Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Kim, Mar, Wiener, and YeeNone listed at time of publication
City of San FranciscoPROP GRename the Office of Citizen ComplaintsNo positionRenames the Office of Citizen Complaints to the Department of Police Accountability (DPA), changes the source of budget funding, and requires DPA to do an audit every two years of how the SF Police Department responds to misconduct complaints.After the tragic killings by police of Alex Nieto, Mario Woods, Amilcar P‚rez-L¢pez, Jessica Williams and Luis Gongora in San Francisco in the past years, meaningful police reform is absolutely critical for our communities of color. This largely-empty proposition has insignificant consequences, so we are not taking a position either way and will continue advocating for real police reform.Supervisors Cohen and Breed, SF Labor Council, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off VotersNone listed at time of publication
City of San FranciscoPROP HCreate Independently Elected Public Advocate for San FranciscansYesCreates an 'Office of the Public Advocate' to review the administration of city programs, investigate and attempt to resolve complaints about city programs and services, and to investigate whistleblower complaints.Communities of color are under constant threat in San Francisco and they need more allies at City Hall. Public Advocates in other cities (like New York) have proven themselves to be strong supporters of the marginalized and ignored. We believe a Public Advocate will help make our city government work better for everyone.Yes on H supporters here including SF Democratic Party, Supervisors Campos, Avalos, Kim, and MarSenator Dianne Feinstein, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
City of San FranciscoPROP IStable Funding for Services that Serve Seniors and Adults with DisabilitiesYesEstablishes a Dignity Fund to support Seniors and Adults with Disabilities with an annual stable source of funding directly from the General Fund, with annual increases until 2037, when the program would expire.Prioritizing funding for social services for vulnerable populations makes sense. Our elders and people with disabilities struggle daily to stay in the city and to access basic services. The Dignity Fund would guarantee continued access to these important services. Supervisors Cohen, Mar, Yee, Avalos, Campos, Breed, and Kim, SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF League of Pissed Off VotersTerence Faulkner, SF Green Party
City of San FranciscoPROP JFunding for Homelessness and TransportationYesCreates a Homeless Housing and Services Fund with a $50 million annual budget to prevent homelessness. Creates a Transportation Improvement Fund with $101.6 million annual budget to improve and expand Muni, fund for Free Muni programs, improve bike and pedestrian safety, and repair streets.Our transit system, particularly in the southeast part of the city, needs smart investments in service and infrastructure. Similarly, homeless housing and services also require more funding that help get everyone off the streets and into dignified homes. This proposition, coupled with Proposition K, would do just that.Mayor Ed Lee; Supervisors Wiener and Farrell, SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF League of Pissed Off VotersSave MUNI, SF Green Party
City of San FranciscoPROP KIncrease General Sales Tax to Cover Prop JYesIncrease local sales tax by 0.75% for the next 25 years to increase the City's General Fund budget.This sales tax increase would help pay for Proposition J (so both must be passed together). While working-class people end up paying more through sales taxes, in this case we would also be getting more and better services and investments in our communities that address our needs.SF Labor Council, SF League of Pissed Off Voters,ÿMayor Ed Lee; Supervisors Farrell, and WienerSave MUNI, SF Green Party
City of San FranciscoPROP LGive Board of Supervisors More Power to Appoint MTA DirectorsYesInstead of having the Board of Supervisors confirm the Mayor's appointments to the SF Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Board of Directors, Proposition L splits appointments to the SFMTA Board of Directors between the Mayor (who would appoint four members) and the Board of Supervisors (who would appoint three members). Also lowers the vote by which the Board of Supervisors can reject the SFMTA budget from seven to six.Like Proposition J and K, this proposition will help make our transportation system better by making sure that our transportation agency (SFMTA) is accountable to all San Franciscans, not just the Mayor. It would create balance at City Hall, making sure that the needs of all communities are better met, particularly in communities of color who are often afterthoughts currently.SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, Supervisors Yee, Kim, Peskin, and CamposSupervisor Wiener, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
City of San FranciscoPROP MCreate Housing and Development Commission to Oversee City Affordable HousingYesCreates a Housing and Development Commission to make recommendations on development proposed on surplus city property, and to adopt rules on the competitive selection process for affordable housing funds and the development of affordable housing on city-owned property.Another proposition that will make our city government better, the creation of a Housing and Development Commission would improve transparency, oversee development of public lands for the common good and allow for more community input and accountability on major developments. Yes on M supporters here including Affordable Housing Alliance, Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Housing Rights Committee, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, Supervisors Peskin, Kim, and MarSenator Dianne Feinstein, SF Labor Council, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
City of San FranciscoPROP NGive All Parents of Children Voting Rights in School Board Elections Yes, Yes, Yes!!!Authorizes SF residents who are not U.S. citizens but who are the parents or legal guardians of a child residing in SF to vote in elections for the Board of Education.In 2014, more than 87% of students in our public schools were children of color. A significant number of their parents or guardians are not US citizens, with little say in policies affecting their child's education. This would change that, making sure our Board of Education can represent the views of all parents, not just those that happen to be U.S. citizens.Supervisors Mar, Campos, Cohen, Wiener, and Kim, SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off VotersNone listed at time of publication
City of San FranciscoPROP OAllow Corporations to Speed Up Office Development in Hunters PointNo, No, No!!!Removes Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 2 and Candlestick Point from a 1986 program to manage growth of office space in Bayview-Hunters Point, allowing for faster development of office space in these two areas.Essentially a handout to a single corporation, this proposition would allow the development company, Lennar, to accelerate construction of office space in the Shipyard, without making further commitments to benefit people living in Bayview-Hunters Point. If it passes, it would accelerate the displacement of Black people from the Bayview.Lennar Corporation, SF Labor Council, San Francisco Democratic Party, Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, Shamann Walton, Sophie MaxwellSF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters
City of San FranciscoPROP PShift Affordable Housing Projects from Nonprofit to Private DevelopersNo, No, No!!!Requires the city to adopt a competitive bidding process for city-funded affordable housing, and to accept the 'best value' proposal.The Association of Realtors spent more than $250,000 putting this Prop and Prop U on the ballot. It would roll back community victories by making building of affordable housing slower and less tailored to the needs of the people that live in our city. It might even end up making affordable-housing into money-making ventures for for-profit corporations.California Association of Realtors, SF Association of Realtors, Wayne Nowak, Supervisor FarrellNo on P&U supporters here including San Francisco Council of Community Housing Organizations, SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters
City of San FranciscoPROP QAttack the Homeless by Banning Tents on SidewalksNo, No, No!!!Prohibits tents on public sidewalks and gives the city the authority to impound or discard the personal property of homeless people.Put on the ballot by Supervisor Mark Farrell (who represents the Marina and Pac Heights), this proposition would criminalize the homeless without creating real solutions that would help homeless people off the streets and into homes. Homeless San Franciscans need solutions, not unconstitutional harassment by the police.Building Owners and Managers Association, SF Chamber of Commerce, SF Travel, Committee on Jobs, Supervisors Farrell, Tang, Cohen, and WienerSF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, Supervisor Avalos
City of San FranciscoPROP RPolice-enforced Gentrification of our StreetsNo, No, No!!!Creates a Neighborhood Crime Unit in the Police Department to investigate and enforce laws to deter neighborhood crime, including auto and bike theft, vandalism, and 'unlawful street behavior' such as panhandling and obstructing the sidewalk.Another proposition put on the ballot by a Supervisor representing affluent neighborhoods, Prop S is Supervisor Wiener's idea to bring police-enforced gentrification to our streets by creating 'Neighborhood Crime Unit'. Along with Proposition Q, it offers no solutions, merely legalizing harassment, micromanaging the SFPD and making it even harder to get real police reform.Yes on R supporters here including SF Republican Party, Supervisors Wiener, Cohen, Tang, and FerrellSF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters
City of San FranciscoPROP SReallocate Hotel Tax Revenue to Fund Arts & Family Homelessness Prevention ProgramsYes, Yes, Yes!!!In addition to providing funding to the Moscone Convention Center under current law, Prop S specifies that the hotel tax collected by the City be directed to programs to prevent homelessness and to provide grants and assistance to the arts.This is a proposition with broad community support because it actually proposes solutions and identifies funding to end homelessness. Prop S would help get funding for the arts (including a new Neighborhood Arts Program!) and create an Ending Family Homelessness Fund that could be used in very specific and meaningful ways to help the lives of homeless San Franciscan families.Yes on S supporters here including SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, Asian Pacific Islander Council, Coleman Advocates, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, Jonathan Moscone, Martha Ryan, Supervisor MarSF Green Party
City of San FranciscoPROP TRestricting Gifts and Campaign Contributions from LobbyistsYesExpands ethics laws to prohibit city officials from receiving gifts of travel for personal benefit or gifts through third parties (including parents, domestic partners, spouses or dependent children) from lobbyists.Corporations already have too much power in San Francisco, particularly because they can afford to hire well-connected and influential lobbyists. This proposition would limit the gifts and political contributions these individuals can make, leveling the playing field a little. It would also increase transparency on the activities of paid lobbyists in City Hall.Yes on T supporters here including San Francisco Ethics Commission, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off VotersNone listed at time of publication
City of San FranciscoPROP UMake Affordable Housing UnaffordableNo, No, No!!!Increases current household maximum income from 55% of the Area Median Income to allow residents who earn 110% of the Area Median Income to access affordable housing.The little existing affordable housing is already out of reach to many San Franciscans of color. This realtor-funded and -backed proposition would make it even more expensive, forcing families struggling to make ends meet to compete with households making more than $115,000 dollars. It is a money-making scheme that eliminates decades of critical victories for working-class San Franciscans.National Association of Realtors, California Association of Realtors, San Francisco Association of Realtors, Thomas A. Hsieh, Supervisor FarrellNo on P&U supporters here including San Francisco Council of Community Housing Organizations, SF Labor Council, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters
City of San FranciscoPROP VTax on Distributing Sugar-Sweetened BeveragesYesImposes a 1-cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages. Revenue goes to the city's General Fund, but the measure also creates an advisory panel to recommend programs to reduce sugary beverage consumption.Communities of color are over-burdened by health costs related to obesity and diabetes, brought on by decades of aggressive targeting by soda companies. These companies also receive millions of dollars in indirect and direct federal funds in the form of subsidies. Enough is enough. This proposition would encourage our communities to consume healthier drinks like water by bringing the price of soda closer to its real cost to society.Yes on V supporters here including American Academy of Pediatrics, California Medical Association, NAACP-SF Chapter, Michael Bloomberg, Supervisors Cohen, Wiener, Mar, and FarrellAmerican Beverage Association California PAC (Big Soda), SF Tenants Union
City of San FranciscoPROP WIncrease Luxury Real Estate TaxYes, Yes, Yes!!!Increases the Real Property Transfer Tax rate on homes worth over $5 million by 0.25-0.5% when property is sold or ownership changes.A great proposition, this would tax millionaires whenever they sell their mansions in San Francisco. The nearly $27 million dollars it would raise each year could be used to make City College free for all San Franciscans.Yes on W supporters here including SF Labor Council, American Federation of Teachers, SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, Supervisors Kim, Campos, Peskin, Mar, Avalos, and YeeSan Francisco Apartment Association
City of San FranciscoPROP XPreserve Space for Neighborhood Arts, Small Businesses and Community ServicesYes, Yes, Yes!!!Requires that when converting building space used for neighborhood arts, small businesses and community services (including nonprofits) to other uses in Mission & SoMa districts that the building conversion retain these uses in a portion of its space.It's not just residents that are getting displaced in our city, it is also small businesses, art spaces and community-serving nonprofits. This means jobs are lost and it makes living in neighborhoods like the Mission and the South of Market even more precarious for working-class people of color. This proposition will preserve these spaces whenever conversions happen, making our neighborhoods a little bit more stable.Yes on X supporters here including SF Tenants Union, SF Green Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, Supervisors Kim, Peskin, and CamposSan Francisco Bay Ar


For more information email

Paid for by Bay Rising.

Built by Union Labor