All measures

San Francisco and California Ballot Backstory · Why is this on my ballot?

Prop C: summary

Contributions to the Housing Trust Fund

Mark your own choices here. You may bring this sheet into the voting booth.

YES

A YES vote means

Housing Trust Fund payments rise to $125 million, then up to 3% yearly until 2058, with pauses or cuts allowed. Downpayment loans reach higher incomes.

NO

A NO vote means

No changes. The City contributed $50.8 million to the Fund last year, per the ballot digest. The Fund is set to expire in 2043.

Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.

If it fails

Timing: from July 2028

If Prop C fails, the rules voters passed in 2012 stay in place. The Housing Trust Fund keeps getting about $52 million a year from the General Fund, moving up or down with City revenue. The Fund ends in 2043.

Why it’s on the ballot now

  1. Voters created the Housing Trust Fund in November 2012. The City committed to a yearly payment of $20 million in 2013, rising to $50.8 million in 2024.

  2. Under current law, the Fund ends in 2043. The Controller projects the required yearly payment would be about $65 million in 2034-35 without Prop C.

  3. Builders of new market-rate housing projects with 10 or more homes must include some affordable homes, build them off-site, or pay a fee. An April 30, 2026, Controller study found none of the financial models it tested could support any.

  4. The study's advisory committee urged a 5% on-site affordable requirement if a consensus measure creating a long-term, recurring affordable housing funding source reached the November 2026 ballot by July 2026, and 10% if not.

  5. On May 19, 2026, Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Melgar announced this Charter amendment. City leaders also introduced a plan to change those affordable-housing requirements.

The money

The Controller estimates extra General Fund costs of about $6 million in 2028-29, rising to about $60 million a year by 2034-35. Payments may be frozen if a projected deficit tops $250 million, or cut up to 10% in Rainy Day Reserve years. The estimates assume neither. Neighborhood improvement grants would be replaced by housing-related infrastructure spending.

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

Taxpayers (households and businesses)No new cost

The Controller projects Prop C would increase the existing Housing Trust Fund spending mandate and extend it to 2058. A spending mandate is a voter rule that sets spending without naming a new source of money.

The City's General Fund (money the Mayor and Board budget each year)

The Controller estimates Prop C adds about $6 million in General Fund costs in FY 2028-29 and $13 million in FY 2029-30. The added cost grows about $9 million a year, to about $60 million by FY 2034-35: a $125 million total versus about $65 million under current law.

The strongest case for and against

Strongest case for

Supporters, including Mayor Daniel Lurie and Supervisor Myrna Melgar, say rents and home prices have climbed faster than paychecks, pricing out teachers, nurses and families. They call the Housing Trust Fund the City's foundation for affordable housing for over a decade. In a rebuttal, Melgar and others say it is set to run out. They say Prop C renews it through 2058 and raises yearly funding to $125 million without raising anyone's taxes. They say funding grows only when City revenue grows, and the City can pause or cut payments during a real budget deficit. They say the Board placed it on the ballot unanimously and that labor and housing advocates support it.

Strongest case against

The San Francisco Republican Party argues the Fund, created in 2012, has failed, while the cost to build one affordable unit has roughly doubled to close to $1 million. They say Prop C doubles the Fund, locks it in for 30 more years and stretches it thinner. It raises the homebuyer income limit from 120% to 200% of median income, which they say is up to $402,000 for a family of four. It also lets the Board change that limit by ordinance, which they say means it could be raised again anytime with no vote of the people. They say it sets no unit target, cost limit per unit or benchmark.