Keith Freedman&#8217;s Ballott Measure Endorsements November 2024 Election

COST: $790M

This bond measure is effectivey a slush fund for SFUSD to do some, all or none of the vague things described in it’s “project list”. Before asking taxpayers to borrow this kind of money, the SFUSD must first determine whether or not it is going to close schools and come up with a specific project list.

My preference would be to separate these into 2 separate measures, one of eminent need and another one for near future needs. In both cases the SFUSD needs to have very specific statement of work and estimated costs. We simply can’t just hand over $760M to an organization that has run a deficit.
I think we also need to elect new school board members and give them an opportunity to right the ship there and then make this ask in the next election.
Should there be a dire need between now and then, The City can loan SFUSD money from the General Fund to cover emergency expendistures to be paid back with a future bond measure.

Proposition B: Community Health and Medical Facilities, Street Safety, Public Spaces, and Shelter to Reduce Homelessness Bond

See Explanation

COST: $390M

How I would spend this money:
The portion of this money devoted to homeless services would be spent implementing my Rising Tide Initiative. Under this program these additional funds would better insure the success in transitioning our homeless population into supportive housing. If you plan to vote for Keith Freedman as your first choice for mayor you may wish to vote Yes on this ballot measure.

Measure analysis:

This ballot measure does a lot of things all at once. This attempts to compel voters to approve a measure which includes things they likely otherwise wouldn’t have voted for separately. In general, I am opposed to this type of voter coercion. However, here is what it funds:

$71M: Seismic upgrades and renovations for Chinatown Public Health Center (YES)
$66M: Repairs to Zuckerberg SF General & Laguna Honda Hospitals (YES)
$40M: Seismic upgrades to building 3 Zuckerberg SF General Hospital (YES)
$63.9M: Cost of “certain street safety projects citywide (These should be done under a separate MTA bond measure)
$41M: Improve public spaces — non specific (These should be done under a separate MTA bond measure)
$25M Castro MUNI/Harvey Milk Plaza improvements (These should be done under a separate MTA bond measure)
$5M: Fix park infrastructure (These should be done under a separate Parks bond measure)
$50M: Homeless Shelters primarily for families (Rising Tide Initiative)

While we likely need to affect repairs on our hospitals and health clinics, mixing those important things along with other items which should be part of separate bond measures confuses voters and forces us to make the choice of paying for things we might not want in order to get what we need.
If you likely would vote for each line item, then vote YES.
If you wouldn’t vote for some of these items, then vote NO and send the message that our leaders need to do better when bringing these items before the taxpayers.

Proposition C: Inspector General

NO

COST: Bureaucracy

This is a ridiculous office manufactured by Aaron Peskin to give him, were he to be elected mayor, more unnecessary power to do nothing. An Internal oversight inspector general appointed by the mayor does not offier sufficient independence to trust they will root out corruption, especially if the mayor is affiliated with the corruption or the corrupt. This is merely another of Aaron’s plans to do something while accomplishing nothing but giving him more power.

My plan is to contract with outside auditors to review all city agencies and recipients of large amounts of city money. In certain cases, such as MTA, I would additionally make the entirety of their budget, expenses and ongoing operations publicly accessible where the public and experts can maintain a watchful eye. This doesn’t require additional bureaucracy or a ballot measure.

Proposition D: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority

NO

COST: $0

We have too many commissions. It’s ridiculous. Worse, most of them don’t require commissioners be qualified in the subject matter relevant to the department they oversee. Let’s clean up this mess, but this proposition is the wrong way to do this.

Arbitrary Limit the City to a total of 65 commissions.
Retain 20 Charter commissions including those that are required by federal or state law.
Arbitrarily remove 24 Charter commissions, including Public Health, Library, Human Rights, Human Services, Arts, Environment, Small Business and Juvenile Probation.
Establish a five-member task force that would recommend within nine months which commissions should be reauthorized or restructured or dissolved to stay within the 65-commission limit. This task force would be appointed by the Mayor, the President of the Board, the Controller, the City Administrator and the City Attorney.

The right way to do this is to first establish a task force, then use the task force recommendation to inform which commissions to cut and how many to cap if a cap is necessary.

Proposition E: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority

NO

COST: $0

This is a counter proposition to Prop D.

I don’t think this topic requires waiting, Prop D is as arbitrary as Prop E.

Proposition F: Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement

YES

Ballot Simplification Committee digest (PDF) Legislative digest (PDF) Legal text (PDF) Controller analysis (PDF)

COST: $15M over 5 years

This is a small price to pay for public safety. Until we can hire and train new officers, we have no choice but to incentivise existing trained officers to keep working for The City. Whether or not you vote Keith Freedman for mayor, any new mayor will need time to improve the city sufficiently to attract new officers, those officers then need to be trained and we want them to be trained by people with many years of experience.

Proposition G: Funding Rental Subsidies for Affordable Housing Developments Serving Low Income Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities

YES

COST: $8.2M annually.

Supports very low income people including seniors and families with children.
This is a small cost that could have a huge impact keeping people closer to their jobs and in our communities.

Proposition H: Retirement Benefits for Firefighters

YES

COST: $3.7M annually

Firefighting is dangerous and it is not a career that lends itself to longevity. The retirement age for Firefighters hired after January 6, 2012 is 58 years old. While this was the agreement those people made when they took the job, it is The City’s responsibility, as it would be any employer, to evaluate the relative risk factors that may determine whether or not that age is appropriate. As firefighting equipment improves, we can potentially reduce the risk of lung cancer and other career ending risks of the job, or we can acknowledge that firefighters are expected to work more years than is fair for the risks they’re taking. On a more cynical note, older firefighters tend to be out on sick leave and disability. Allowing them to retire younger will shift these costs from the day-to-day employee costs to a retirement cost which is more predictable and easier to budget. The $3.7M annual costs will increase over time as wages go up and more firefighters reach retirement age. It also means we will have additional recruiting and training costs as we will have to hire replacement Firefighters more often. These costs were not included in the controllers analysis.
In the end, this is a small price to pay so that people who put their lives on the line to save our businesses, our homes and our lives can enjoy a retirement.

Proposition I: Retirement Benefits for Nurses and 911 Operators

YES

COST: $6.7M annually

Like Prop H, this will serve people on the front lines serving their community. We have a severe shortage of 911 operators and need to incentivize more people to do this incredibly stressful job. There are parts of this proposition I don’t care for. It allows nurses who are contractors “per diem” to ‘buy back’ 3 years of retirement benefits. This is meant to incentivize them to stay on where they might otherwise take work in another city. I think this is an unnecessary motivation given the high rates we already pay in SF. They’re here on contract because either they want to live here or the pay is already good enough. I also don’t feel it’s fair to those working and earning a pension that people making higher per diem get retroactive pension credit. However, I think these are small prices to pay for the overall benefits of Prop I. It puts me just slightly into the Yes position. Likely if the annual costs were much higher, I’d have recommended a No position.

Proposition J: Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth, and Families

YES

COST: $35-83M annually

Prop J would extend and update three key funds in San Francisco: the Children and Youth Fund, the Public Education Enrichment Fund, and the Student Success Fund. These funds provide essential support for a variety of programs and services that benefit children, youth, and students in the city. By voting “YES,” we ensure continued funding for educational, health, and wellness services that improve the quality of life and education for young people, especially those in underserved communities. The measure also focuses on expanding equity and inclusion in public education, providing resources for tailored programs aimed at addressing disparities and promoting student success. Ultimately, a “YES” vote supports a long-term investment in the city’s future by enhancing opportunities for all students.

Proposition K: Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space

NO

Controller’s analysis challenge (PDF)

COST: $0

Prop K DOES NOT build a park. This is a lie. Not only does it NOT build a park but it allocates no funding to make alternate routes to the Upper Great Highway viable. Proponents claim that traffic will be rerouted to Sunset Blvd along with additional “synchronized” traffic lights on Lincoln Blvd, however, this Prop does not fund those projects. All it does is close a roadway.
The right way to solve problems is to FIRST build alternatives and then close roads. At a later date, once Sunset is implemented and proven effective, and once there is actual funding for a park (an estimated $100 Million), we can have a single piece of legislation that simultaneously closes the UGH and builds a park.
When you have to lie about what your proposition does, it should be rejected for that reason alone. This kind of deception should not be rewarded even when the outcome may be positive. In this case, the only outcome is inconvenience to people who rely on the UGH and to neighborhoods which will encounter a lot more traffic from the rerouting.
In addition, 19th Avenue will be under construction for the next 3-5 years, this will already cause traffic rerouting. If UGH is also closed, the entire west side of the city will become a parking lot.

This is not a “once in a lifetime” chance to make a park. We can easily revisit this later on after 19th Ave and Sunset/Lincoln improvements are complete.
Click here to read more.

Proposition L: Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation

NO

COST: $0

This measure simply penalizes people for not taking public transit. Transportation Network Companies (Uber, Lyft, Waymo, etc.) are vital for parents, children, seniors and tourists for whom MUNI may not be the best option for every single trip. In addition, it may have the undesired effect of incentivizing car ownership–if ride hailing becomes more expensive, car ownership may become a preferred alternative.
This kind of disincentive based legislation violates one of my primary principles of governance–we should lead with the carrot and then use the stick if necessary. Instead of improving alternatives, this simply punishes people for making a choice it’s authors don’t like. That’s the wrong way to motivate people.

Proposition M: Changes to Business Taxes

YES

COST: -$50M annually

Prop M changes San Francisco’s business tax structure, aiming to simplify the system and provide tax relief for small businesses while maintaining revenue for critical city services. The measure adjusts various business taxes, including gross receipts, administrative office taxes, and taxes on certain sectors like real estate and technology.

It’s not all good news. This will shift some of the tax burden from the small number of high tax paying corporations and redistribute it to the mid range businesses in The City. While small businesses and restaurants may see a slight decrease in taxes. This is meant to reduce the “all eggs in one basked” problem we have. If one of those large tax payers were to leave San Francisco, the loss to our tax base would be hard to handle. By redistributing this tax burden, we reduce the impact of a departure but also reduce the liklihood one of those big businesses would leave.

Proposition N: First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund

YES

Legislative digest (PDF)

COST: $0 to unknown

Prop N supports the creation of the First Responder Student Loan Forgiveness Fund, which will provide crucial financial relief to the city’s first responders by helping pay off their student loans and covering job-related educational and training expenses. This initiative would strengthen the city’s ability to attract and retain qualified professionals, including police officers, firefighters, paramedics, registered nurses, and 911 dispatchers, by offering them financial support. Given the increasing demands on first responders, this measure aims to alleviate some of their financial burdens and encourage long-term service in these essential roles, ensuring that San Francisco continues to have a skilled and dedicated workforce to protect and serve its residents.
The downside is that the funding for this program is undefined. The hope is to fund this via charitable contributions but it may be funded by taxpayers. That part is unclear. If this raises concerns, then vote NO. As Mayor I would work hard to recruit contributions from donors to save the taxpayers from having to fund the loan forgiveness program.

Proposition O: Supporting Reproductive Rights

YES