Sample Our Newsletter

Here's the latest news regarding the parcel tax proposition: Petitions to place the "Stronger Muni for All" parcel tax on the November 2026 ballot are being circulated now. The ballot measure, designed to raise approximately $183-$187 million annually to stabilize 's SFMTA's budget and prevent service cuts, was not placed on the ballot directly by the Board of Supervisors. That would have required a two-thirds supermajority (66.67%) vote to pass. Instead, they went the "voter initiative" route which requires a simple (50% + 1) majority to pass. If 10,620 valid signatures are collected from registered San Francisco voters by July 6, 2026, the "Stronger Muni for All" proposition will appear on November's ballot.

Voter initiative versus direct placement
Why did the Board of Supervisors opt for a voter initiative (collecting signatures) rather than direct placement (legislative referral)? Using an initiative allows supervisors to frame a controversial policy as "voter-led" rather than "politician-driven." This can be a strategic way to distance the Board from a polarizing issue while still ensuring it reaches the ballot. Avoiding legislative scrutiny is another reason. Measures placed by the Board typically go through public hearings, committee reviews, and expert analysis. Voter initiatives bypass this entire vetting process, allowing the original text to remain exactly as drafted by its proponents without being amended by other supervisors. Creating permanent laws is probably the main reason. San Francisco's City Charter states that any law approved by voters cannot be amended or repealed by the Board of Supervisors or the mayor; it can only be changed by another citywide vote. This "chiseled in stone" mandate prevents future boards from reversing the policy. I doubt voters in San Francisco understand this.

Four possible scenarios
1. If 10,620 valid petition signatures aren't collected, it doesn't make the November 2026 ballot. By most indications, more than enough signatures will be collected.
2. "Stronger Muni for All" does not receive a simple majority vote (50% + 1).
3. "Stronger Muni for All" receives a simple majority vote (50% + 1). This is very likely; however, assuming the statewide California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Special Taxes Initiative (Save Prop. 13) also passes, would it supersede the city-only parcel tax proposition?
4. It's quite possible that the "Stronger Muni for All" parcel tax proposition receives a two-thirds super- majority (66.67%) vote. These recently-passed bond issues reached that high bar:
• Prop. B: Community Health and Infrastructure Bond (11/24) 69.66%
• Prop. A: Affordable Housing Bond (3/24) 70.05%
• Prop. A: School Facilities Bond (11/24) 75.68%

A two-thirds supermajority vote seals the deal. The statewide California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Special Taxes Initiative ("Save Prop. 13") could not reverse the San Francisco parcel tax vote.

Pattern of consistent borrowing
Turning to San Francisco voters to cover Muni's capital shortfalls has become a familiar pattern:
• In 2007, Prop. A (Charter amendment/transit reform authorized Muni to issue revenue bonds and other indebtedness without further voter approval (with required approvals as set out in the Charter)—meaning voters weren't asked each time SFMTA later issued that kind of debt.
• In 2014, Prop. A (Transportation and Road Improvement Bond) authorized $500 million in general obligation bonds (paid back via property taxes) for transportation projects including Muni reliability/safety work.
• In 2022, Prop. A (Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond) proposed $400 million in general obligation bonds; it won with 65.11% of the vote but failed because it didn't reach the two-thirds threshold.

A broken business model
Why does San Francisco need to keep leaning on small property owners every time public transit needs money? Since when is streamlining routes and running operations more efficiently a bad thing? Modern cities use a mix of smart tools—revenue from station shops and ads, commercial partnerships that bring in steady income, regional or state funding that spreads the cost fairly, and fining fare evaders (fair evasion is a huge drain on revenue, yet little is done to combat it). Creative, fiscally sound ways do exist to fund great transit without treating property owners like the city's ATM.