San Francisco
Prop IChanges to Real Property Transfer Tax
Watch the backstory
Read the transcript
In November 2020, voters doubled the transfer tax on property sales of 10 million dollars or more.
This November, Prop I asks to send half of that tax to affordable housing. Why now?
Today, that money can go to any City purpose, and supervisors can cut the tax without asking voters.
In February 2026, an ordinance was introduced to cut the rates on sales over 10 million dollars. City budget offices estimated it would lower revenue by 93.8 million dollars in 2026-27, and more in later years.
Mission Local reported that Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mahmood paused that plan. In March 2026, City budget offices projected a 642.8 million dollar General Fund shortfall over the next two years.
If Prop I fails, all of the tax keeps going to the General Fund, for any City purpose.
If it passes, the Controller says 120 million dollars a year moves to housing, which adds that much to the deficit.
In March 2026, City budget offices projected General Fund shortfalls of 741.7 million dollars in 2028-29 and 1088.6 million in 2029-30. In June 2026, the Controller's early review of the Mayor's budget found the 2028-29 shortfall would likely be about 450 million.
We found no published service-cut plan tied to either outcome.
Opponents argue the 120 million dollar shift forces cuts in lean years. Proponents say Prop I does not raise taxes.
The Controller says about 120 million dollars a year would move from the General Fund to housing. The measure sets no end date.
It passes if more than half of the votes are YES.
Prop I does not raise the tax rate: it cuts the current transfer tax in half and adds a new one at the same rate. In an illustrative example, a 15 million dollar apartment building pays 825,000 dollars in transfer tax, one time, at sale.
With Prop I, it still pays 825,000 dollars, only split between two funds.
Voters signed a petition, and it qualified on July 23, 2026.
A YES vote sets aside half of this tax money for affordable housing and housing assistance only. The first sale of certain new apartment buildings would not owe that half.
A NO vote keeps it open to any City purpose, and supervisors could cut the tax.
Sources and the full analysis are at ballotbackstory.org.
Ballot Backstory. Why is this on my ballot?
What your vote does
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Shall the City permanently dedicate half of the transfer tax revenues collected when certain real estate with a value or sales price of more than $10,000,000 changes hands, which will continue to be taxed at rates of 5.5% to 6%, to be spent only on affordable housing, including social housing developments and housing assistance, and exempt certain sales from the dedicated portion of the tax, for an estimated annual revenue decrease of approximately $1 million?
This is the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Timing: from July 2027
If Prop I fails, all of the tax keeps going to the General Fund, for any City purpose. If it passes, the Controller says $120 million a year moves to housing, adding that much to the deficit. This guide found no published service-cut plan tied to either outcome. 274
- In March 2026, the Controller and two other City budget offices projected General Fund shortfalls of $741.7 million in FY 2028-29 and $1,088.6 million in FY 2029-30. In June 2026, the Controller's early review of the Mayor's proposed budget found the FY 2028-29 shortfall would likely be about $450 million. 10428
- The 2020 tax is a general tax, so under current law its use for housing is decided in each year's budget. The Mayor's Office of Housing reported $24,222,953 in Housing Stability Fund uses in FY 2024-2025, for 177 homes and 9 commercial units. 2719
- Today supervisors can lower this tax without a vote; Prop I would end that, the Controller says. An ordinance introduced in February 2026, the BUILD Act, would cut rates on sales over $10 million. A City budget report estimated it would cut revenue by $93.8 million in FY 2026-27. 341013
- The Controller says Prop J could bring an average of $100 million to $150 million a year over its first five years, unpredictably, likely highest at first and then declining. If I passes and J fails, no J money offsets I's $120 million. 24254
- If both pass, part of J's money could go to Prop I's housing fund, since that tax uses the current tax's exemptions. But Prop I's text says voters intend it to prevail in a conflict, as far as law allows. No official source says how the two would be reconciled. 722
- Yes on I's campaign manager said Prop I was designed to protect the transfer tax from cuts. In a passage reporting the campaign manager's comments, an SF Standard article said Prop J would raise about the same amount, likely filling the hole if both pass. 21
- Opponents argue taking $120 million from the General Fund shrinks funding baselines, including Muni's, and forces cuts in lean years. Proponents say Prop I does not raise taxes, and that none of the 2020 tax's money went to affordable housing in the past two years. 6
- The Controller calls the transfer tax the City's most volatile revenue, with year-over-year changes that have exceeded 60 percent. Mission Local reported that the BUILD Act was paused, and that it is unclear how long it will stay on hold. 2813
Why it’s on the ballot now
In November 2020, voters raised the transfer tax on property sales over $10 million. The Board of Supervisors resolved to commit that money to social housing and COVID rent help. 811
Under current law, that money is not set aside. Transfer tax money can be spent on any City purpose, and the Board can cut the tax without asking voters. 3
In February 2026, a City ordinance was introduced to cut transfer tax rates on sales over $10 million. City budget offices estimated it would lower revenue by $93.8 million in 2026-27. 10
Mission Local reported that Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mahmood paused that plan. In March 2026, City budget offices projected a $642.8 million General Fund shortfall for the next two fiscal years. 1310
Supporters say none of this tax money has gone to affordable housing in the past two years. They gathered signatures, and the measure qualified on July 23, 2026. 65
How we got here
Childcare rent tax passes by simple majority
After gathering enough voter signatures, June 2018 Prop C asked to tax certain commercial rents to fund early childcare and education. It passed by a simple majority, with about 51% of the vote. 12
Controller estimates 2020 transfer tax increase
The Controller estimated the 2020 transfer tax increase may raise about $196 million a year on average, and called the transfer tax the City's most volatile revenue source. 9
Voters pass 2020 Prop I
Voters approved Prop I with 58% of the vote. It doubled the rates on sales of $10 million to under $25 million (2.75% to 5.5%) and $25 million or more (3% to 6%). 139
Housing Stability Fund created
In 2020 the Board of Supervisors created the Housing Stability Fund and an oversight board to recommend uses of Prop I money given to the fund. 8
Court upholds majority-vote initiative tax
A state appeals court affirmed a ruling that turned back a lawsuit against the June 2018 childcare tax. It rejected the claim that Proposition 13, Proposition 218 and the City Charter require a supermajority (more than a simple majority) for it. 12
Transfer tax cut proposed
An ordinance was introduced to cut transfer tax rates on sales over $10 million. Budget offices estimated it would lower revenue by $93.8 million in 2026-27. 10
Budget shortfall projected
City budget offices projected a $642.8 million General Fund shortfall over the next two fiscal years. 10
Transfer tax cut paused
Mission Local reported that Supervisor Mahmood and Mayor Lurie paused their plan to halve the transfer tax on sales of multimillion-dollar properties. Mahmood said San Francisco is in a budget crisis. 13
Prop I qualifies for the ballot
The Department of Elections certified that the petition for Prop I had enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. 5
Prop I: Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax
The money
The Controller says $120 million a year would move from the General Fund to a House SF Fund, raising the deficit that much. Total revenue drops about $1 million a year starting in FY 2027-28. Required minimums: 60% for affordable housing production programs (at least half of that for social housing), 25% to buy or preserve housing, 10% for tenant help. At most 5% for administration. 43
- Amount
- About $120 million a year moved from the General Fund to housing
- How long
- Permanent (no end date)
- Who pays
- No one pays a higher rate. Sales of property over $10 million would still be taxed at 5.5% to 6% in total, split between the current tax and a new housing tax. The first sale of certain new apartment buildings within 5 years of completion would not owe the new housing tax. 314
- Vote needed to pass
- Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to passSome measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.
It passes if more than half of the votes are YES (50% plus 1). 2
Locked-in budget
Today, transfer tax money can be spent on any City purpose. Voter-required spending rules already cover about $2 billion, or 30%, of about $7 billion in General Fund sources. The Controller says Prop I would be the 24th such rule, moving $120 million a year into a fund only for affordable housing. 34
Who bears the cost
The City's General Fund (and the services it pays for)
What they already pay
- The 2020 rate increase is a general tax, so its money goes to the General Fund. The Controller estimates it raises $117.3 million in FY 2027-28; this is the money Prop I would redirect. 2728
- The Controller says voter-required spending rules cover about $2 billion, or 30%, of about $7 billion in General Fund sources. Prop I would be the 24th such rule. 4
If it passes
- The Controller says $120 million a year would move from the General Fund to the new House SF Fund. The General Fund can be spent on any purpose. The House SF Fund can be spent only on specific affordable housing programs. 4
- Total City revenue would fall about $1 million a year starting in FY 2027-28, the Controller says. That is the new-housing exemption, so the House SF Fund would get about $119 million a year. 4
Sellers of property for $10 million or moreNo new cost
What they already pay
If it passes
- No new cost to these sellers. The total rate stays the same, split between the two funds: 2.75% plus 2.75% from $10 million to under $25 million, and 3% plus 3% at $25 million or more. 34
- A first sale of certain new apartment buildings within 5 years of completion would not owe the House SF part. The Controller estimates this exemption lowers revenue by about $1 million a year; in the example below, the tax is $1,200,000 lower. 3422
- Today's exemptions and reductions carry over to the new tax. The Board of Supervisors may also exempt rent-restricted affordable housing without a vote. 37
| Example | Pays now | Added | % of current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illustrative example: apartment building sold for $15 million (one-time tax at sale). 22 | $825,000 once, at sale | No change | 0% |
| Illustrative example: office building sold for $60 million (one-time tax at sale). 22 | $3,600,000 once, at sale | No change | 0% |
| Illustrative example: new apartment building, first sale within 5 years of completion, sold for $40 million (one-time tax at sale). 22 | $2,400,000 once, at sale | $1,200,000 less once, at sale | −50% |
Sellers of property for under $10 million, including most homes and condosNo new cost
What they already pay
If it passes
| Example | Pays now | Added | % of current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Condo sold for $1.2 million, which a 2024 Controller's economic report gave as the recent average for downtown condos (one-time tax at sale). 2226 | $9,000 once, at sale | No change | 0% |
Passing the cost on
The Controller's Office of Economic Analysis says sellers pay the transfer tax. A title company's closing-cost guide lists sellers as paying it, but says the split is by custom only and may be negotiated. This guide found no transfer tax among the Rent Board's rules for passing costs to tenants. 262023
Example figures are calculated by code from the cited rates, not written by AI. How we calculate
Promised and delivered
SF Prop I (2020)
Promised
The Controller estimated the measure may raise about $196 million a year on average, but warned that the higher rates would likely lead to tax avoidance and that past years may not predict future revenue. Applied to past sales, the new rates would have raised from $13 million to $346 million a year. The Board resolved to commit the money to social housing and COVID rent help. 98
Delivered
In 2021 the Board put $42 million into COVID rent relief. Budget offices called 2022-23 and 2023-24 historically weak years. In May 2026 the Controller projected $127.7 million from the 2020 increase for 2025-26. The Mayor's Office of Housing reported spending $24.2 million from the Housing Stability Fund in FY 2024-2025, on four projects with 177 homes. Supporters say none went to affordable housing in the past two years. 81011619
SF Prop C (June 2018)
Promised
Placed on the ballot by voter signatures, it sought an extra tax on certain commercial rents to fund early childcare and education. 12
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: Citizen petition
Voters signed a petition to put it on the ballot. On July 23, 2026, the Department of Elections found it had more than the 10,644 valid signatures needed. 5
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
Progressive coalition groups San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters and Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club recommend Yes on Prop I, as does the League of Women Voters of San Francisco. The moderate coalition groups GrowSF, TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF) and San Francisco Chamber of Commerce recommend No, as does SPUR. Both the San Francisco Democratic Party and the San Francisco Republican Party recommend No. The largest donors to committees supporting Prop I are Saikat Chakrabarti and Dean Preston; the largest donors to committees opposing it are Michael Moritz and The Related Companies/William Witte, who gave to a joint committee for Yes on C and No on I. 17161518
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | Yes | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | No | ||
| TogetherSF Action (now Blueprint SF) | No | ||
| San Francisco Chamber of Commerce | No | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | No | ||
| San Francisco Republican Party | No | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No position | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | No | ||
| League of Women Voters of San Francisco | Yes | ||
| YIMBY Action | No | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | Yes | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | No | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
- Saikat Chakrabarti$150K
Who is this?
Former Stripe engineer and former congressional candidate. Chakrabarti co-founded Justice Democrats, a PAC that works to elect progressive members of Congress. 1
- Dean Preston$117.5K
Who is this?
Their stake
A news report says Preston put together the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act, which is Prop I. Prop I would set aside half of the existing transfer tax on higher-priced property sales for affordable and social housing and rental help. 45
From public records, not their own explanation.
- Dean Preston - Wikipedia
- Ballot measure could lock some transfer tax cash for housing | San Francisco Examiner
- Paid arguments on Proposition I (not checked for accuracy by any official body), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 136-143
- SF's Prop I would direct high-value property tax revenue toward affordable housing - Local News Matters
- The Fight Goes to the Ballot — Organized Labor
- Dylan Hirsch-Shell$105K
Who is this?
What they’ve said
At a rally for Prop I, Hirsch-Shell said community-owned social housing is “precisely the type of housing that everyone supports.” 1
- Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Issues PAC$25K
Who is this?
SEIU Local 1021's website says it represents over 60,000 workers. They work for local governments, nonprofits, health care and schools in Northern California. 1
- Charles Good$25K
- Aaron Boucher$25K
- Aditya Bhumbla$15.4K
- Jefferson Lee$15K
- Jeffrey May$12.5K
- Scott Feeney$10.6K
- The top 5 donors gave 61% of this side’s money.
- 16% came from outside San Francisco.
- 8% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $8,270
Committees: Fair Housing, Yes on I; San Francisco DSA (nonprofit 501(c)(4)), Primarily Formed to Support Fair Housing
NOTop donors
- Michael Moritz$200K
- The Related Companies/
William Witte$200K - San Francisco Apartment Association Issues PAC$191K
- SF Forward Sponsored By San Francisco Chamber Of Commerce$185K
Who is this?
SF Forward is the PAC of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber's website says SF Forward supports and opposes ballot measures and issue campaigns. 1
What they’ve said
- 555-575 Market Owner, LLC(Responsible Officer: Greg Flynn)$100K
- Kilroy Realty, LP & Affiliated Entities$100K
- The Prado Group, Inc.$75K
- Core Urban Holdings LLC And Affiliated Entities((Responsible Officer: Kevin Verdi) )$63.5K
- Carmel Partners And Affiliated Entities$61.5K
- Trinity Management Services And Affiliated Entities; Including James Sangiacomo$60K
- The top 5 donors gave 34% of this side’s money.
- 36% came from outside San Francisco.
- 9% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $20.3K
Committees: Yes on C, No on I, SF for Accountability in Housing
- Fair Housing, Yes on I: includes $2,390 of 24-hour late contributions (Form 497) dated after its latest Form 460 period ended 2026-10-17.
- YES side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $8,270, mostly by: Build Affordable Faster California, sponsored by Tenants and Owners Development Corp. $4,261; Council of Community Housing Organizations $4,009. These are separate from, and not included in, total_raised.
- Yes on C, No on I, SF for Accountability in Housing: includes $684,899 of 24-hour late contributions (Form 497) dated after its latest Form 460 period ended 2026-10-17.
- NO side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $20,334, mostly by: GrowSF Voter Guide $14,512; SPUR - San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Association $5,823. These are separate from, and not included in, total_raised.
- Yes on C, No on I, SF for Accountability in Housing is a multi-measure committee (also: Yes on C). Its filings don't divide money by measure, so its full total and donors are shown on every measure it covers; do not add the measures' totals together.
- Totals are contributions reported on Form 460 (Schedule A monetary, C non-monetary, loans) plus Form 497 late reports, from Jan 2025 or the committee's 2026 start; amended filings replace the original. Unitemized gifts under $100 are in totals but not in donor lists or geography shares. Outside-SF/CA shares use itemized gifts only.
- Source cutoff: the SF Ethics Commission data on DataSF was loaded 2026-10-27 and includes filings received through 2026-10-26. as_of is the latest filing from this measure's own committees, which can be earlier.
- Committees from the June 2, 2026 election (Props A–D on business taxes, term limits and the earthquake bond) are not counted. See pipeline/config/money_committees.yaml for each exclusion.
Sources: SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w) · SF Ethics Commission campaign finance summary totals (DataSF 9ggq-m8hp) · SF Ethics Commission campaign filers (DataSF 4c8t-ngau)
Related and competing measures
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters include the Affordable Housing Alliance, the San Francisco Tenants Union, Small Business Forward, United Educators of San Francisco and SEIU 1021. They say voters approved the 2020 tax so its money could fund affordable housing and rent relief. They say it gave emergency rent relief to more than 10,000 households and helped preserve and build hundreds of affordable homes. But, they say, none of it has gone to affordable housing in the past two years. They say Prop I keeps that promise without raising taxes, cuts the tax for new housing construction, and requires yearly audits by the Controller. They note the state-required housing plan calls for 46,000 affordable homes by 2031. 6
Strongest case against
Opponents include Judge Quentin Kopp, the San Francisco Taxpayers Association and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. They say Prop I would lock about $120 million a year away from the General Fund, which pays for police, firefighters, street cleaning and parks. They say this would force severe service cuts in lean budget years. They say transfer tax revenue is unpredictable and a shaky base for long-term programs. They argue at least 70% of the money does not have to build new housing, and that no new homes are required. They add that less General Fund money also shrinks other required funding, including Muni's. 6
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Official ballot question, Proposition I (en edition), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 132
- Vote threshold for Proposition I, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 132
- Ballot Simplification Council digest of Proposition I, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 132-133
- Controller's Statement on Proposition I, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 133
- How Proposition I got on the ballot (Dept. of Elections), SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 133
- Proponent's and opponent's arguments and rebuttals on Proposition I, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 134-135
- Legal text of Proposition I, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 233-239
- Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board recommendations FY 2022-23 (approved)
- Controller's statement on Proposition I (Transfer Tax), November 2020
- Five-Year Financial Plan Update FY 2026-27 through FY 2029-30 (March 2026), Controller/Mayor's Budget Office/BLA
- Controller's Nine-Month Budget Status Report FY 2025-26
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco, Court of Appeal, First District, A157983 (filed Jan. 27, 2021), applying All Persons (Prop C 2018)
- Mission Local: Lurie, Mahmood pause transfer tax cut (June 2026)
- Ballot Simplification Council digest of Proposition J, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 144
- SPUR: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- League of Women Voters of San Francisco: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- How endorsers line up on Prop I: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-26 (compiled by this guide from SF Ethics Commission campaign finance transactions (DataSF pitq-e56w); data/money/sf-2026-11-i.json, main@0dcbec8)
- Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board 2026 Implementation Report
- Old Republic Title: Bay Area closing costs by county (who customarily pays)
- SF Standard: Police, fire unions oppose Prop I affordable housing measure (Aug 13, 2026)
- Cost examples for Prop I: this guide's calculations from the cited rates (ai/impact_costs.py)
- Landlord petitions and passthroughs (SF Rent Board, sf.gov)
- Controller's Statement on Proposition J, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 144-145
- Legal text of Proposition J, SF Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov 3, 2026, p. 239-242
- Controller's Office economic impact report: Transfer Tax Exemption (Prop C, March 2024)
- Housing Stability Fund Oversight Board: About
- Controller's Revenue Letter, FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 Proposed Budget (June 9, 2026)