Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Municipal elections in San Francisco, California (2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Top 100 Cities Banner.jpg




2018 →
← 2015
2016 San Francisco elections
Ballotpedia Election Coverage Badge.png
Election dates
Filing deadline: N/A
General election: November 8, 2016
Election stats
Offices up: Board of Supervisors
Total seats up: 6
Other municipal elections
U.S. municipal elections, 2016
Six of the 11 seats on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors were up for election on November 8, 2016. There were two main voting blocs on the board in 2016, and the results of the November election were expected to shift the balance between the two voting blocs.


Progressives picked up a six-seat majority on the board of supervisors in November 2015, when Aaron Peskin was elected to serve out the last year of former Supervisor David Chiu's term.[1] The 2016 election presented an opportunity for moderate candidates to gain seats and potentially shift the board’s balance of power. Three progressive members of the board—Supervisors Eric Mar, David Campos, and John Avalos—were term limited out of office, and progressive Supervisor Jane Kim made a bid for the California State Senate.[1][2] With Supervisor London Breed the only moderate incumbent up for re-election in 2016, moderates just needed to defend her seat and pick up another to regain control of the board. Learn more about the moderate-progressive divide on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2016 by clicking here.


San Francisco uses ranked-choice voting to elect members to the board of supervisors. In a ranked-choice voting system, voters rank up to three candidates for each race. If none of the candidates for an office wins a majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his or her votes are transferred to voters' second-preference candidates. Candidates continue to be eliminated and votes redistributed until one candidate achieves a majority.[3]

General election

District 1

District 3

District 5

District 7

District 9

District 11

"Progressive," "moderate," and "front-runner" designations are based on candidates' endorsements and fundraising as well as information from local media.

Ballot measures

See also: San Francisco County, California ballot measures

November 8, 2016

• Proposition C: San Francisco Affordable Housing Bond Issue Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city to issue $260.7 million general obligation bonds originally approved by voters in 1992 and repurposing the bonds to fund the purchase and improvement of buildings in need of safety upgrades in order to covert them intro affordable housing.
A no vote was a vote against allowing the city to issue and repurpose $260.7 million in general obligation bonds.

• Proposition E: San Francisco City Responsibility for Street Trees and Sidewalks Amendment Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of shifting responsibility for maintenance of trees along public streets and surrounding sidewalks from private property owners to the city and allocating $19 million per year from the general fund to pay for the maintenance.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving private property owners responsible for the maintenance of street trees and surrounding sidewalks.

• Proposition F: San Francisco Youth Voting in Local Elections Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to lower the minimum voting age requirement from 18 to 16 for city elections.
A no vote was a vote against this proposal, leaving the minimum voting age for city elections at 18.

• Proposition I: San Francisco Funding for Seniors and Adults with Disabilities Amendment Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to allocate an initial $38 million per year—with scheduled increases—until June 30, 2037, to funding services for seniors and adults with disabilities.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition to amend the city charter, thereby leaving the city’s Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) to advocate for services for the disabled.

• Proposition K: San Francisco Sales Tax Increase Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the city's sales tax by an additional 0.75 percent tax for 25 years with revenue deposited into the general fund, creating a total sales tax rate in the city of 9.25 percent.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition to increase the city's sales tax, thereby leaving the total sales tax rate in the city at 8.75 percent.

• Proposition L: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Governance Amendment Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city's charter to (1) split appointment authority for members of the Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) between the mayor and the board of supervisors and (2) reduce the number of supervisors needed to reject the SFMTA's budget from seven to six.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving all of the SFMTA's board members appointed by the mayor and leaving a seven-vote requirement for the board of supervisors to reject an SFMTA budget proposal.

• Proposition O: San Francisco Office Development in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of approving this citizen initiative to exempt office development projects in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point from a square foot limit imposed by voters through Proposition M, a citizen initiative in 1986.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the 950,000 square foot limit on the office development projects proposed for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point.

• Proposition P: San Francisco Minimum Three-Proposal Requirement for Affordable Housing Projects on City Property Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of this citizen initiative to require three competing proposals to the mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development for any affordable housing projects on city-owned property.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, leaving no requirements regarding competitive bidding for affordable housing projects proposed to the mayor's Office of Housing Community Development.

• Proposition Q: San Francisco Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of prohibiting the use of tents on public sidewalks and requiring the city to offer temporary shelter before removing tents.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition to prohibit tents on public sidewalks, thereby leaving the city's laws against obstructing public sidewalks and sitting or lying down on sidewalks in place without adding a specific provision against tents.

• Proposition S: San Francisco Allocation of Hotel Tax Funds Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of allocating revenue from the city's base hotel tax of 8 percent—a little over half of the city's total 14 percent hotel tax—to arts programs and family homeless services.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition to allocate some hotel tax revenue to arts and family homeless services, thereby leaving all hotel tax revenue deposited into the city's general fund.

• Proposition T: San Francisco Restricting Gifts and Campaign Contributions from Lobbyists Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of (1) requiring lobbyists to identify the city agencies and officials they plan to lobby during a registration process, (2) prohibiting them from making campaign contributions to officials they are registered to lobby and making gifts to any city officials, and (3) prohibiting lobbyists from facilitating contributions from a third party, an activity called bundling.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the city's restrictions on campaign contributions from lobbyists unchanged and leaving no prohibition against lobbyists bundling contributions for officials.

• Proposition U: San Francisco Income Qualifications for Affordable Housing Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the rental rate that qualifies a unit toward affordable housing minimum requirements to a rate affordable by a household with an income level of up to 110 percent of the median income.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving a tiered affordable housing requirement system requiring certain percentages of units to be made available to households with incomes of up to 55 percent and 100 percent of the area's median income, respectively.

• Proposition V: San Francisco Soda and Sugary Beverages Tax Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of imposing a tax on all soda and sugary beverages at a rate of 1 cent per ounce.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving no additional city tax on soda and sugary beverages.

• Proposition X: San Francisco Replacement Space Requirement for Development Projects Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of requiring developers to provide space to replace any locations zoned for neighborhood arts, small businesses, or community services of certain sizes that were destroyed or disrupted by a development project within the Mission and South of Market neighborhoods.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the city's regulations about zoning and development in effect in the Mission and South of Market neighborhoods.

• Proposition H: San Francisco Establishment of a Public Advocate Office Amendment Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to establish the elected city office of Public Advocate, who would oversee a support staff of 25 city employees, to review city programs and address complaints about city services and programs.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition to establish the city office of Public Advocate.

• Proposition M: San Francisco Housing and Development Commission Establishment Amendment Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city's charter to create a Housing and Development Commission—with board members appointed by the mayor, the board of supervisors, and the controller—to oversee two new departments that would replace two offices controlled solely by the mayor.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the city's economic and housing development strategies overseen by offices controlled solely by the mayor.

• Proposition J: San Francisco Homeless Services and Transportation Funds Amendment Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to allocate an initial $50 million per year and $101.6 million per year—with scheduled increases—to homeless services and transportation services respectively for 24 years.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, leaving the city's budget allocation for homeless services and transportation services at the discretion of the board of supervisors.

• Proposition W: San Francisco Real Estate Transfer Tax Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the tax on the sale of houses and property from 2 percent to 2.25 percent for properties sold for between $5 million through $10 million, from 2.5 percent to 2.75 percent for properties sold for between $10 million through $25 million, and from 2.5 percent to 3 percent for properties sold for $25 million or more.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the city's real estate transfer tax unchanged.

• Proposition N: San Francisco Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city's charter to allow the non-citizen parents or guardians of students who live in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in school board elections.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the requirement that only citizens are eligible to vote in any election, including school board elections.

• Proposition D: San Francisco Vacancy Appointments Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of requiring the mayor to appoint a temporary replacement to fill a vacancy in city government who could not run in the replacement election, requiring a replacement election within five months, and setting deadlines for vacancy-related appointments and elections.
A no vote was a vote against this proposal, thereby leaving the mayor's appointment to fill a vacancy in office until the next regularly scheduled city election and allowing the appointee to run as a candidate in the election to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the office's term.

• Proposition G: San Francisco Police Oversight Amendment Approveda

A yes vote was a vote in favor of renaming the Office of Citizen Complaints as the Department of Police Accountability (DPA), requiring the DPA to review police use-of-force policies and incidents, and giving the DPA access to certain records and documents.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the city's Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) intact and with unchanged responsibilities and duties.

• Proposition R: San Francisco Neighborhood Crime Unit Creation Defeatedd

A yes vote was a vote in favor of requiring the city police department to create a unit consisting of 3 percent of all sworn police offices dedicated to preventing crimes harmful to neighborhood safety and quality of life, provided there are a minimum of 1,971 sworn police officers.
A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving efforts against neighborhood crime as an equally shared responsibility among all police officers with no dedicated task force.

June 7, 2016

• Proposition B: San Francisco Park Fund Charter Amendment (June 2016) Approveda

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of a charter amendment to extend for 15 years the city's park fund—established in 2000 and set to expire in 2031—and require a minimum allocation from the general fund and provide measures to ensure park fund revenue is used equally in all neighborhoods, including low-income areas.
A "no" vote was a vote against the proposed chater amendment regarding the park and open space fund.

• Proposition C: San Francisco Affordable Housing Requirements Charter Amendment (June 2016) Approveda

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to increase requirements for affordable housing on developments with 25 or more units and to give the San Francisco Board of Supervisors the authority to alter the existing and impose new affordable housing requirements through ordinances.
A "no" vote was a vote against amending the charter, keeping the then-current affordable housing requirements and requiring a charter amendment ballot measure to change the city's laws governing affordable housing requirements.

• Proposition A: San Francisco Public Health and Safety Bond Issue Approveda

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of increasing the city's debt by $350 million through issuing general obligation bonds in that amount and increasing the city's property tax rate to repay the debt.
A "no" vote was a vote against issuing the bonds.

• Proposition E: San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Changes Approveda

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of changing the city's paid sick leave laws to be more compatible with state law and to expand the legally valid uses of paid sick leave hours.
A "no" vote was a vote against the proposed change to the city's paid sick leave laws.

• Proposition D: San Francisco Citizen Complaints Office Investigations of Police Shootings Approveda

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of requiring the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) to launch an investigation every time a city police officer shoots someone, regardless of whether or not there is a complaint.
A "no" vote was a vote against the proposal, leaving the OCC with no requirement to investigation any incident unless there is a citizen complaint.

Campaign finance

San Francisco Board of Supervisors campaign finance summaries, 2016[4]
District Candidate Contributions Expenditures Cash Debt
1 Sandra Lee Fewer $152,322 $171,719 $122,060 $0
1 Richard Greenberg $16,768 $6,353 $10,416 $10,100
1 Sam Kwong $3,514 $1,654 $1,860 $0
1 Brian Larkin $500 $277 $223 $0
1 David Lee $65,998 $88,952 $64,687 $9,691
1 Jonathan Lyens $42,803 $58,156 $29,443 $8,586
1 Marjan Philhour $163,850 $217,999 $35,970 $0
1 Andrew Thornley $5,679 $3,917 $1,762 $0
3 Aaron Peskin $60,620 $39,523 $21,097 $0
5 London Breed $315,733 $229,283 $86,956 $506
5 Dean Preston $111,402 $177,182 $57,065 $6,629
7 Joel Engardio $41,551 $21,778 $74,514 $1,000
7 John Farrell $18,895 $10,973 $7,922 $0
7 Alexander Lee $50 $50 $0 $50
7 Ben Matranga $58,788 $53,131 $84,512 $1,766
7 Norman Yee $136,468 $117,657 $42,074 $3,263
7 Mike Young $19,632 $15,723 $3,908 $3,000
9 Joshua Arce $137,460 $140,862 $82,112 $0
9 Iswari Espana-Metia $2,610 $1,200 $1,410 $0
9 Edwin Lindo $17,972 $17,097 $15,625 $637
9 Hillary Ronen $231,957 $246,178 $89,409 $0
9 Melissa San Miguel $34,490 $24,702 $12,288 $2,500
11 Kimberly Alvarenga $78,153 $89,143 $100,026 $0
11 Magdalena De Guzman $8,646 $8,701 -$56 $2,695
11 Berta Hernandez $5,629 $5,156 $555 $3,000
11 Francisco Herrera $4,583 $5,860 -$1,277 $0
11 Ahsha Safai $139,958 $115,818 $113,318 $0

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may not represent all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer, and campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.

Endorsements

San Francisco Board of Supervisors candidate endorsements, 2016
District San Francisco Democratic Party[5] SEIU Local 1021[6] San Francisco Tenants Union[7] San Francisco Chronicle[8] San Francisco Examiner[9] San Francisco for Democracy[10] SF Moderates[11]
1 Sandra Lee Fewer Sandra Lee Fewer Sandra Lee Fewer Marjan Philhour Sandra Lee Fewer
Jonathan Lyens 		Sandra Lee Fewer Marjan Philhour
David Lee
3 Aaron Peskin Aaron Peskin Aaron Peskin Aaron Peskin Aaron Peskin Aaron Peskin No endorsement
5 London Breed No endorsement Dean Preston London Breed London Breed Dean Preston London Breed
7 Norman Yee Norman Yee Norman Yee Joel Engardio Joel Engardio Norman Yee Joel Engardio
Ben Matranga
9 Hillary Ronen Hillary Ronen Hillary Ronen Joshua Arce Hillary Ronen Hillary Ronen Joshua Arce
11 No endorsement Kimberly Alvarenga Kimberly Alvarenga Ahsha Safai No endorsement Kimberly Alvarenga Ahsha Safai

Issues

Google buses

Commuter shuttle.png

Tens of thousands of San Franciscans commuted to Silicon Valley jobs each day via tech company-operated private buses.[12] A January 2014 decision by city transportation officials to allow private buses to use public bus stops for a small fee intensified opposition from some San Franciscans, who saw the buses as symbols of rising rents and income inequality associated with the city’s tech boom.[13]

Moderate members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors defended the "Google buses" and the city's commuter shuttle program. "We need to stop demonizing these tech workers who are simply trying to get to work," Supervisor Scott Wiener said.[14] Wiener also noted that permitting the tech shuttles to use public stops gave the city the ability to enforce certain regulations on them. "If [the shuttles] start using [parking lots and white zones instead of public bus stops]," he said, "we have no leverage (to increase fees or negotiate changes to routes). The leverage we have is that they are using Muni stops."[15]

However, progressive supervisors worried that the tech shuttles posed safety hazards to city residents and that they contributed to higher rents and rising eviction rates in the areas near shuttle stops.[16][17] They also criticized the commuter shuttle program as overly favorable to the tech industry. "I think the current program bends over backwards to accommodate these tech companies," Supervisor Kim said. "Residents keep asking who is the city for, who do you represent? Do you represent all of us, or do you just represent a very small category of employers?"[16]

The moderate-led board rejected an appeal of the commuter shuttle program in 2015.[18] When the new progressive majority got an opportunity to rule on the program in February 2016, it didn't shut down the program entirely, as some shuttle opponents had hoped, but it extended the program for a year rather than making it permanent. It also made changes to the program, restricting the number of public stops tech shuttles could use and calling for a six-month environmental, traffic, and housing impact study.[17]

The tech buses were expected to be back on the board's agenda after the November election, as the supervisors reviewed the findings of the impact study and revisited a progressive proposal to move shuttle pick-ups and drop-offs from public bus stops to centralized hubs.[19][20] Some members of the tech industry indicated which of the two voting blocs they preferred to see leading those discussions. Tech companies Medium, Salesforce, and Y Combinator contributed to the political action committee, Progress San Francisco, that funded groups backing moderate candidates Philhour in District 1 and Safai in District 11.[21] The San Francisco Examiner reported that the companies' spending followed an email blast from Laura Clark, vice president of one of the recipients of the Progress SF funding. "Early morning commuters need to know how the Supervisor race will impact their lives," Clark's email said. "Help reach techies near you!"[21]

Short-term rentals

Short-term rentals.png

On October 7, 2014, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 7-4 to permit short-term rentals via sites like Airbnb. Moderate Supervisors Breed, David Chiu, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Katy Tang, and Wiener and progressive Supervisor Kim voted in favor, while progressive Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Mar, and Yee were opposed.[22]

Short-term rentals were envisioned primarily as a way for city homeowners to supplement their incomes, but critics worried they were contributing to the city's housing crisis by removing rental units from the already tight longer-term market.[23] The San Francisco Board of Supervisors responded to the concerns in July 2015 with two proposals for regulations on the short-term rental industry. One, introduced by Campos, would have required short-term rental companies to file quarterly reports about rental hosts, limited rentals to 60 days a year, and allowed citizens to sue landlords who exceeded the 60-day cap. The other, from Farrell, proposed stronger enforcement of an existing law against renting out entire homes for more than 90 days a year.[24] SF Gate reported that the board, on which moderates held a six-seat majority at the time, rejected Campos' proposal and approved Farrell's by 6-5 votes, "underscoring once again the philosophical divide about whether short-term rentals exacerbate the city's housing shortage or allow people to stay in their homes by renting out spare rooms."[24]

Short-term rental opponents, dissatisfied with the board's response, pushed for stronger limits, qualifying a proposition to cap short-term rentals at 75 nights per year for the November 2015 ballot.[25] The ballot measure was defeated by a vote of 55 percent to 45 percent, but the board of supervisors took up the issue again after progressives claimed a board majority.[26]

In June 2016, the board of supervisors approved a proposal from Campos and Peskin to impose fines on short-term rental companies that posted listings from hosts who weren't registered with the city.[27] Moderate Supervisor Breed, who faced a challenge from progressive tenant rights activist Preston in her 2016 bid for re-election, voted for the proposal.[27] Breed also sponsored a bill with Campos and Peskin to cap the short-term rental limit at 60 days per year, although she declined to exercise her prerogative as board president to fast-track it for a pre-Election Day vote.[28][29] Breed opposed Campos' 60-day cap proposal in 2015.[28][30]

Real estate development regulations

San Francisco skyline.png

In October 2016, San Francisco had the most expensive real estate market in the country, with a median monthly rent of $3,420 for a one-bedroom apartment.[31] The median price for a single-family home in the city that month was $1.3 million.[32]

In 2016, San Francisco’s moderate and progressive factions agreed that the city faced a housing affordability crisis and that action was necessary. However, they often differed in their assessments of the housing issues and in their priorities for addressing them.

Differing affordable housing proposals illustrated both the common ground between the camps and the differences in their approaches in 2016. Moderate Supervisor Tang and the progressive team of Supervisors Peskin and Mar each proposed relaxing the city's height limits for affordable housing buildings, reflecting a shared acknowledgment of the need for new development. However, Tang proposed allowing 100 percent affordable housing projects to exceed the existing limit by three stories and mixed-income developments to add two extra stories, while Peskin and Mar proposed allowing two extra stories for 100 percent affordable housing buildings and no exemption from the height limit for mixed-income housing. The progressives also proposed mandating conditional use authorizations for the developments, requiring them to be built on vacant lots, and tying the qualification threshold for affordable housing to neighborhood median income rather than the citywide median.[33]

Tang's proposal reflected the moderates' position that the solution to the housing crisis was to increase supply to meet demand and that the city should make it easier for developers to build by rolling back real estate development regulations on both affordable and market-rate housing.[34][35] Peskin and Mar's proposal reflected progressives' emphasis on minimizing displacement of existing residents and changes to the city, as well as their belief that new regulations were sometimes the best route to affordability.[34][35]

Those differences also came out in other proposals floated by members of the board of supervisors in 2015 and 2016. In September 2015, moderate Supervisor Wiener introduced an ordinance to exempt affordable housing developments from the city's conditional use authorization requirement. He also offered the proposal as a ballot measure in January 2016, with support from fellow moderate Supervisors Cohen, Farrell, and Tang, but the board voted to pass it as an ordinance in February before it went to the June 2016 ballot.[36][37] Peskin, on the other hand, pursued new requirements for developers. For example, he explored ways to increase the stock of rent-controlled units, such as packaging rent controls with zoning adjustments.[38][39]

Although there were some signs of a slowdown in the San Francisco housing market in 2016, housing affordability continued to be a challenge for the city even after the November election.[40]

About the city

See also: San Francisco, California

San Francisco is a city in California. It is consolidated with the County of San Francisco, which means that the city and county share a government and their boundaries are coterminous. As of 2010, its population was 805,235.

City government

See also: Mayor-council government

The city of San Francisco uses a strong mayor and city council system. In this form of municipal government, the city council serves as the city's primary legislative body and the mayor serves as the city's chief executive.[41]

Demographics

The following table displays demographic data provided by the United States Census Bureau.

Demographic Data for San Francisco, California
San Francisco California
Population 805,235 37,253,956
Land area (sq mi) 46 155,857
Race and ethnicity**
White 46.4% 59.7%
Black/African American 5.2% 5.8%
Asian 34.4% 14.5%
Native American 0.4% 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.4%
Other (single race) 7.7% 14%
Multiple 5.6% 4.9%
Hispanic/Latino 15.2% 39%
Education
High school graduation rate 88.5% 83.3%
College graduation rate 58.1% 33.9%
Income
Median household income $112,449 $75,235
Persons below poverty level 10.3% 13.4%
Source: population provided by U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census" (2010). Other figures provided by U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2014-2019).
**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.


Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco California election. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Municipal elections in San Francisco, California (2016) - Google News

See also

San Francisco, California California Municipal government Other local coverage
Seal of San Francisco.png
Seal of California.png
Municipal Government Final.png
Local Politics Image.jpg

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 KQED, "Analysis: Peskin Win Gives S.F. Progressives Majority, But for How Long?" November 4, 2015
  2. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Jane Kim, Scott Wiener in District 11 State Senate Race," May 3, 2016
  3. ↑ City and County of San Francisco, "Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed October 24, 2016
  4. ↑ San Francisco Ethics Commission, "Total Contributions & Expenditures," October 21, 2016
  5. ↑ The San Francisco Democratic Party, "November 2016 Endorsements," accessed October 25, 2016
  6. ↑ SEIU Local 1021, "2016 Endorsements," accessed October 25, 2016
  7. ↑ San Francisco Tenants Union, "Endorsements for November 8th, 2016 Election," accessed October 25, 2016
  8. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Election 2016 Voter Guide," accessed October 25, 2016
  9. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Board of Supervisors," October 13, 2016
  10. ↑ San Francisco for Democracy, "November 2016 Endorsements," accessed October 27, 2016
  11. ↑ SF Moderates, "November 8, 2016 Election Endorsements," accessed October 27, 2016
  12. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Google Buses Multiplying, But They're Not the Bad Guy," September 16, 2016
  13. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "San Francisco Approves New Regulations for 'Google Buses,'" January 21, 2014
  14. ↑ The New Yorker, "Regulating the Private Buses of 'Google-Land,'" January 22, 2014
  15. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Vilifiers of Tech Shuttles Are Taking Us for a Ride," February 15, 2016
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 NBC Bay Area, "'Tech Buses' Commit Hundreds of Violation on San Francisco Roadways," April 29, 2016
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 MissionLocal, "SF Supes Adopt Deal for Commuter Shuttle Program," February 23, 2016
  18. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Critics File Legal Challenge of S.F. 'Google Bus' Program," December 22, 2015
  19. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "City Makes Last Call for Tech Shuttle 'Transit Hubs,'" July 4, 2016
  20. ↑ SFMTA, "Commuter Shuttle Hub Model Study - Criteria," accessed October 28, 2016
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 San Francisco Examiner, "Google Bus Issue Reappears as 'Dark Money' from Tech Floods into Supervisor Races," October 14, 2016
  22. ↑ City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, "Meeting Minutes," October 7, 2014
  23. ↑ WAMU, "Critics Blame Airbnb for San Francisco's Housing Problems," August 11, 2014
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 SF Gate, "S.F. Supes Opt to Give Airbnb Law a Chance to Work," July 14, 2015
  25. ↑ The Mercury News, "Anti-Airbnb Measure Qualifies for San Francisco Ballot," July 14, 2015
  26. ↑ The Guardian, "San Francisco Voters Reject Proposition to Restrict Airbnb Rentals," November 4, 2015
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 SF Gate, "SF Supes Crack Down on Unregistered Short-Term Rentals," June 7, 2016
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 SF Gate, "SF Supervisors Propose 60-Day Cap on All Airbnb Rentals," October 13, 2016
  29. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "No Sign Breed Will Call Short-Term Rental before Election," October 24, 2016
  30. ↑ Airbnb Has Sued Its Hometown of San Francisco," June 28, 2016
  31. ↑ Zumper, "Zumper National Rent Report: October 2016," September 29, 2016
  32. ↑ Climb Real Estate, "Climb's Real Estate Market Report for Q3 2016
  33. ↑ San Francisco Business Times, "Dueling Affordable Housing Proposals Collide at S.F. Board of Supervisors," May 24, 2016
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 The New York Times, "In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build," April 16, 2016
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 San Francisco Love Affair, "J's 2015 San Francisco Voter Guide!" October 26, 2015
  36. ↑ Medium, "Press Release: Supervisor Wiener Introduces Ballot Measure to Streamline Creation of Affordable Housing," January 20, 2016
  37. ↑ Scott Wiener - Democrat for State Senate, "Board of Supervisors Passes Supervisor Wiener's Legislation to Streamline Affordable Housing Production," February 2, 2016
  38. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Proposal Could Create 33K New Rent-Controlled Homes," March 16, 2016
  39. ↑ Beyond Chron, "Peskin's Rent Control Expansion: Will It Work?" February 1, 2016
  40. ↑ Inc. "Silicon Valley's Housing Crisis Easing Up, Finally," June 7, 2016
  41. ↑ City of San Francisco, "Government," accessed September 3, 2014
v • e
2016 Municipal Elections
MayorsMunicipal Government Final.png
City Councils
Counties
2016 Local Elections
Other Ballotpedia Content
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Municipal_elections_in_San_Francisco,_California_(2016)&oldid=10547653"