Measure A (San Francisco County)

Measure A (San Francisco County)
Name	Measure A (San Francisco County)
Title	San Francisco County Affordable Housing and Development Authorization
Date	November 2016
Location	San Francisco County, California
Result	Passed

Measure A (San Francisco County) was a 2016 San Francisco ballot proposition that authorized the City and County of San Francisco, California to issue bonds to fund affordable housing and related development projects across neighborhoods such as Tenderloin, Mission District, and Bayview–Hunters Point. The measure emerged amid concurrent political debates involving agencies like the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Mayor of San Francisco, and advocacy groups such as Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco and San Francisco Tenants Union. It placed the city’s housing strategy in dialogue with statewide initiatives including the California State Legislature’s housing regulations and federal programs administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Background

San Francisco’s housing affordability crisis deepened through the 2000s and 2010s with pressures from technology firms like Google LLC, Twitter, Inc., and Salesforce drawing employees to the San Francisco Bay Area and intensifying demand in neighborhoods such as SoMa and Pacific Heights. Prior local measures including Proposition A (San Francisco, 2008), development agreements with entities like Transbay Joint Powers Authority, and planning initiatives by the San Francisco Planning Commission framed the fiscal and legal context for Measure A. City debates involved stakeholders from San Francisco Housing Authority, nonprofit developers such as Mercy Housing, and philanthropic actors including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, while legal counsel referenced precedents from cases in the California Supreme Court and regulatory guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Ballot Measure Details

Measure A proposed authorization for the issuance of general obligation bonds to raise funds earmarked for the acquisition, construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing, emergency shelters, and supportive housing serving populations from Veterans Affairs-affiliated veterans to families participating in programs administered by San Francisco Human Services Agency. The ballot language outlined maximum bond amounts, repayment terms tied to property tax levies administered by the Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector (San Francisco) and oversight mechanisms involving the San Francisco Controller and citizen advisory committees. It also specified eligible uses in coordination with agencies such as the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development and service providers including Catholic Charities USA and GLIDE Foundation.

Campaign and Supporters

Support for the measure coalesced around coalitions of municipal leadership, nonprofit housing developers, labor organizations like Service Employees International Union locals, and civic groups including SPUR (San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association). Endorsements were announced by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors members, the Mayor of San Francisco’s office, and prominent advocates from institutions such as University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital. Financial backing and campaigning involved actors like the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, philanthropic donors connected to The San Francisco Foundation, and community advocacy organizations including Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco. Campaign materials linked Measure A to precedent measures supported by alliances with California Statewide Communities Development Authority partners and leveraged polling from firms associated with consultants experienced in municipal bond campaigns.

Opposition and Criticisms

Opposition came from a mix of taxpayer advocacy groups, certain neighborhood associations, and political figures skeptical of bond-based finance, including critics referencing fiscal conservatism exemplified by entities like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Concerns raised by opponents included the long-term property tax implications for property owners in districts represented on the Board of Supervisors, potential displacement issues highlighted by scholars at Harvard University and Stanford University, and questions about oversight effectiveness compared with models promoted by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Environmental and planning critiques from community activists drew on disputes previously seen during approval processes for projects involving the Transbay Terminal and other large-scale developments.

Election Results

Measure A appeared on the November 2016 ballot concurrent with the 2016 United States general election and statewide propositions. Voter tallies were certified by the San Francisco Department of Elections; precinct-level patterns showed stronger support in neighborhoods with dense concentrations of affordable housing advocacy such as Excelsior District and weaker margins in higher-cost enclaves like Nob Hill. Final results recorded a majority approval, reflecting alliances between municipal officials, labor unions, and nonprofit developers. The measure’s passage fit into a broader pattern of San Francisco voters approving revenue measures addressing housing and transportation, comparable to outcomes for measures tied to agencies like the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

Implementation and Impact

Following approval, bond issuance and project selection were administered by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development in coordination with the Board of Supervisors and oversight by the San Francisco Controller’s office and citizen oversight committees. Funds supported projects developed by nonprofits such as BRIDGE Housing and Mercy Housing California, preservation efforts in affordable housing portfolios including those overseen by the San Francisco Housing Development Corporation, and service partnerships with providers like Hamilton Families. Short-term impacts included construction starts and acquisition of at-risk buildings; longer-term outcomes involved debates over displacement, effectiveness measured by researchers at University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Los Angeles, and fiscal effects observed in San Francisco bond ratings monitored by agencies like Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s. Continued assessment engaged entities such as the San Francisco Office of Economic Analysis and civic monitors including Yerba Buena Center for the Arts-affiliated programs.

Category:San Francisco ballot measures