San Francisco and California Ballot Backstory · Why is this on my ballot?
Prop B: summary
Establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and a Public Bank
Mark your own choices here. You may bring this sheet into the voting booth.
A YES vote means
If funding allows, the City may create a government-owned lender. After three years of operation, it may seek approval to become a deposit-taking public bank.
A NO vote means
The Charter stays as it is. No local law would let the City create a municipal finance corporation or a public bank.
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop B fails, there is still no local law that lets the City create a municipal finance corporation or a public bank. Supporters say passing it now lets the City use a state law with a time limit. Opponents say existing programs, nonprofit lenders and credit unions already help.
Why it’s on the ballot now
A state law, AB 857 (the California Public Banking Act), created a formal way for local governments to start their own public banks.
In 2021, the Board of Supervisors created a Reinvestment Working Group to plan a city lender and bank. The Board unanimously accepted its plans in 2023.
In 2025, the Board unanimously urged the Treasurer to set up the municipal finance corporation once funding is secured.
Prop B would write the 2023 plan’s mission, structure and rules into the Charter. Supporters say the state law that lets cities create public banks is time-limited.
The money
The Controller says Prop B would not directly change City costs, since the City need not act. If the City creates the lender and bank, 2023 Working Group estimates put costs at about $310 million to $460 million over eight years, possibly much higher or lower. The Controller warns of possible significant unforeseen costs if the bank is not financially sustainable.
Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass Some measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.Who bears the cost
City government
The Controller says Prop B alone would not directly change City costs, since it does not make the City create the corporation. Supporters say it is not a tax. Opponents say losses on bad loans would fall on taxpayers.
The strongest case for and against
Strongest case for
Supporters, including several Supervisors, the San Francisco Labor Council and the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition, say a public bank would make sure San Franciscans’ money benefits San Franciscans. They say it would offer affordable loans for housing, homeownership, small businesses and environmental projects. They say banking professionals, not politicians, would run it, with public oversight, and that it would follow all normal bank rules plus state rules. They say Prop B would help the City seek state, federal and charity funding it has missed out on, and use a time-limited state law. They note Prop B is not a tax.
Strongest case against
Opponents, including the committee No on Prop B – San Franciscans for Fiscal Responsibility and attorney Larry Marso, say Prop B creates a politically appointed lender with no dedicated funding or proven demand, amid large budget shortfalls. Marso cites the eight-year $310 million to $460 million estimate in the Controller’s statement and says taxpayers would bear losses from bad loans. Marso says City reserves could be put in the bank, adding risk, and cites the Los Angeles Community Development Bank’s collapse. Marso also says state law requires FDIC (federal deposit) insurance, which no public bank with such a mission has obtained. The committee says existing lenders and City programs already help.