San Francisco, California, Park, Recreation, and Open Space Fund Charter Amendment, Proposition B (June 2016)

• Text of measure
• Support
• Opposition
• Background
• Path to the ballot
• Recent news
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Proposition B: San Francisco Park Fund Charter Amendment (June 2016)
The basics
Election date:
June 7, 2016
Status:
a Approved
Topic:
City budget
Related articles
City budget on the ballot June 7, 2016 ballot measures in California San Francisco County, California ballot measures
See also
San Francisco, California Municipal elections in San Francisco, California (2016)

A charter amendment to extend a park and open space fund and require minimum general fund supplementation of the fund was on the ballot for voters in San Francisco, California, on June 7, 2016. It was approved.

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.

Election results

San Francisco, Measure B
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		143,113	60.05%
No		95,223	39.95%

Election results from San Francisco Elections Office

Overview

How much money goes to the fund?

In the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the city allocated about $64 million from the general fund to the parks and open space fund. Proposition B was designed to require the city to allocate a baseline of $64 million to the parks and open space fund in 2016-2017, with this baseline allocation increasing by $3 million each year for ten years unless the city experienced a deficit of $200 million or more. The board of supervisors was originally able to allocate any amount or nothing at all from the general fund to the parks fund.

This supplementary funding from the general fund was designed to be in addition to an annual 2.5 cents per $100 in assessed value set aside for parks and open space from city property taxes, amounting to about $46 million per year. Proposition B was written to extend this property tax share until 2046; the fund was originally set to expire in 2031.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:

“

Shall the City amend the Charter to extend the Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund until 2046 and give the Recreation and Park Department each year a minimum baseline amount from the General Fund in addition to the Fund set-aside of2 1/2 cents for each $100 of assessed property value?

”

Ballot Simplification Committee digest

The following summary of Proposition B was prepared by the San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee:

“ The Way It Is Now: The City’s Recreation and Park Department (Department) operates and maintains over two hundred parks, as well as many playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces throughout San Francisco. In 2000, San Francisco voters created the Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund (Fund). Every year, the City must set aside and deposit into the Fund a portion of the property tax it collects. The Department must use that money to provide park and recreational services and facilities. The current amount of the set-aside is 2-1/2 cents for each $100 of assessed property value. The Fund will expire in 2031. In addition to this set-aside, each year the Department also receives money from the City’s General Fund. The City is not required to appropriate any specific amount for the Department beyond the set-aside in the Fund. In 2000-2001, the Recreation and Park Department received 2.1% of the City’s General Fund. That percentage dropped to 1.2% in the 2014-2015 fiscal year. A Parks Alliance budget analysis shows that, if the 2.1% had remained constant, the Department would now be receiving approximately $89 million instead of $50 million. The Proposal: Proposition B would amend the Charter to: extend the Fund for an additional 15 years to 2046; require the City, beginning in fiscal year 2016-2017, to give the Department each year a minimum baseline amount from the General Fund, in addition to the Fund set-aside. This baseline amount would be equal to the Department’s share of the budget from the General Fund in fiscal year 2015-2016. Each year through fiscal year 2026-2027 the City would increase that baseline amount by $3 million. After 2026-2027, the Controller would adjust the annual baseline amount based on the City’s revenues. In any fiscal year, the City would not be required to make any increase if the City is facing a substantial budget deficit; and require the Department to determine whether low-income neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities are receiving the same level of Department services and resources as the City as a whole. If the levels are not the same, the Department would have to develop a plan to correct these imbalances. A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to extend the Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund until 2046 and require the City to give the Recreation and Park Department each year a minimum baseline amount from the General Fund in addition to the Fund set-aside. A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes to the Charter ” —San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee

Full text

The full legal text of Proposition B can be read here.

Support

Supporters

Proposition A was supported by nine out of the 11 members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who all signed the official ballot argument in support of the measure:

• John Avalos (District 11)
• London Breed (District 5)
• David Campos (District 9)
• Malia Cohen (District 10)
• Mark Farrell (District 2)

• Jane Kim (District 6)
• Eric Mar (District 1)
• Scott Wiener (District 8)
• Norman Yee (District 7)

The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition B.

Arguments in favor

The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters released a statement in support of Proposition B. The league argued that, in general, legally setting aside funds for dedicated purposes can remove flexibility and make government less able to react to changing needs. The league concluded, however, that Proposition B was a good "set-aside" since parks were a persistent priority to San Francisco voters and residents. An excerpt of the league's analysis is below:

“

In San Francisco, we love our parks, and in this dense city, we depend on them to act as our backyards and living rooms too. Excellent parks are a critical part of a sustainable city. But San Francisco’s parks are suffering after years of shrinking funding. The SF League of Conservation Voters supports Proposition B, which would renew the city’s Open Space Fund to bring in an estimated $1 billion over 30 years for city parks, without raising taxes. [...] Proposition B builds upon the Open Space Fund passed by voters in 2000, which aimed to provide a sustainable funding source for parks. Proposition B will ensure the City’s General Fund set-aside for the Recreation and Parks Department cannot fall below 2015-16 funding levels, gradually increases over time, and ensures stable funding for the next 30 years through 2045-46.

”

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of Proposition B:

“

PROPOSITION B PROTECTS SAN FRANCISCO PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND OPEN SPACES Proposition B provides just over $1 billion in new, sustainable park funding for 30-years, without raising taxes. Whether you take your kids to the playground, enjoy a walk on one of our many trails, play soccer, or simply sit on a park bench and enjoy a good book, our parks, playgrounds and open spaces serve as our city’s backyards, and are essential to our quality of life. Yet park funding as a share of the City’s total budget has eroded over the years. Analysis by the nonprofit San Francisco Parks Alliance found that the Recreation and Park Department (RPD) annual allocation from the City’s General Fund hasn’t kept up with the growing City budget, leaving our parks in need of more stable funding to address park needs such as fixing broken playground equipment, replacing broken sprinklers to conserve water, and keeping trails cleared and safe. Proposition B builds upon the Open Space Fund overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2000, fulfilling San Franciscans’ intent to provide a sustainable funding source for parks. Proposition B will ensure the City’s General Fund contribution to RPD gradually increases over time, cannot fall below 2015-16 funding levels, and ensures stable funding for the next 30 years through 2045-46. Proposition B also requires RPD to develop equity metrics and an analysis of funding and service levels in low-income neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities, and to submit annual recommendations on how to provide equitable and sustainable funding for parks, playgrounds, and open spaces in every neighborhood of the city. Protect and improve San Francisco’s parks, playgrounds and open spaces in every neighborhood by voting Yes on Proposition B.

”

Opposition

Opponents

A Vote No on Proposition B campaign was started to urge voters to reject Proposition B.

Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Katy Tang voted against putting Proposition B on the ballot and publicly opposed it.

Representatives of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco signed the official ballot argument in opposition to Proposition B.

According to the campaign website, the following organizations, political party clubs, and media outlets opposed Proposition B:

Organizations

• Sierra Club, SF Bay Chapter
• League of Women Voters, SF
• CSFN - Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (a coalition of over 40 neighborhood groups)
• SEIU Local 1021
• San Francisco Tomorrow
• San Francisco Tenants Union
• San Francisco Forest Alliance
• HANC - Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council
• D5 Action
• Tenant Associations Coalition Political Action Committee, TAC PAC
• SomBA - South of Market Business Association
• Save the Palace of Fine Arts
• SF Taxpayers Association
• SF Ocean Edge
• Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance

Political clubs

• Central City Democrats
• District 3 Democratic Club
• District 8 Progressive Democratic Club
• Potrero Hill Democratic Club
• SF Green Party
• SF League of Pissed Off Voters
• SF Libertarian Party
• SF Republican Party

Media

• SF Bay Guardian
• SF Chronicle
• SF4ALL progressive blog
• Westside Observer

Arguments against

Opponents of Proposition B argued that Proposition B would:

• Allow huge amounts of discretionary spending by the Recreation and Parks Department with little or no accountability

Opponents argued that, since the Recreation and Parks Department is not elected and Prop. B was not designed to allow the board of supervisors to oversee spending, establishing a large dedicated fund completely controlled by the department would result in wasted money and a lack of responsiveness to voters.

• Remove the flexibility and control over funding needed by the city supervisors to react to changing needs in the city

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to Proposition B:

“

Proposition B is another transfer of power from elected officials to unelected bureaucrats (similar in this respect to Proposition AA). It would take millions of dollars in spending authority away from elected legislators and put it in the hands of political appointees and career bureaucrats in the Recreation and Parks Department. According to the measure’s official legislative digest, The Board of Supervisors “would not have the power to adopt, reject, or modify the [department’s] plans.” Why have Board members put such a measure on the ballot, one might wonder? Ducking responsibility, much? Even if a Controller’s audit “finds that the Department has not complied” with requirements for reporting, holding public hearings, establishing metrics to ensure equal distribution of resources to low-income neighborhoods, etc., the most the Board would be allowed to do is reduce the following year’s departmental budget by 5%! Prop. B would also eliminate the requirement that “New revenues from outside sources, such as grant or foundation support” be used “only for enhancement of park and recreational programs” (page 4). In other words, opening the door for such funds to be spent on salaries, perks, or other overhead, rather than on park improvement! With no guarantee that their donations won’t be misspent, will “outside sources” still want to support the parks? Perhaps only in cases where the motive for giving is not to improve the parks, but to curry favor with those in power! Besides increasing the portion of the municipal budget off-limits to legislators elected by the people, Prop. B would sneakily authorize the issuance of revenue bonds (incurring debt) without voter approval (pages 4-5). Definitely last, though perhaps not least, this abdication of power to the bureaucracy wouldn’t expire until 2046! This is not good government. Vote NO on B.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Proposition B was put on the ballot through a vote of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Board of Supervisors election

Note: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is functionally the city council of San Francisco, which is a consolidated city-county government. Thus, the board of supervisors is referred to as the city council below.

See also: Municipal elections in San Francisco, California (2016)

The city of San Francisco, California, held elections for six of the 11 seats on its board of supervisors on November 8, 2016. The city utilized instant-runoff voting (IRV) for municipal offices, eliminating the need for runoff elections.

Other San Francisco measures

• Proposition A: San Francisco Public Health and Safety Bond Issue a
• Proposition C: San Francisco Affordable Housing Requirements Charter Amendment (June 2016) a
• Proposition D: San Francisco Citizen Complaints Office Investigations of Police Shootings a
• Proposition E: San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Changes a

Recent news

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

San Francisco, California, Park, Recreation, and Open Space Fund Charter Amendment, Proposition B (June 2016) - Google News

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2016
• City budget ballot measures
• Local charter amendments ballot measures
• San Francisco County measures

California

• June 7, 2016 measures in California
• Local ballot measures, California
• San Francisco, California

• Municipal elections in San Francisco, California (2016)

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• San Francisco Elections Office website

Opposition

• SF Vote No on Proposition B website