Ballot Measures Impacting Real Estate

San Franciscans are used to long ballots, and this November will be no exception. If you own a home, are thinking about buying or selling one, own rental property or simply care about housing costs, five local propositions deserve a closer look.

Propositions C, G, H, I and J touch real estate in very different ways from affordable housing and the Upper Great Highway to property and transfer taxes. Here’s what voters should know.

Proposition C would expand San Francisco’s Housing Trust Fund, which finances affordable housing construction, acquisition and rehabilitation, as well as homeownership programs.

The City currently contributes about $52 million annually to the fund. Prop. C would gradually increase the required contribution to $125 million annually and extend the Housing Trust Fund from 2043 to 2058. Contributions could be paused or reduced under certain fiscal circumstances. The income limit for the fund’s down payment loan program would increase from 120% to 200% of Area Median Income, potentially making assistance available to more middle income households.

Prop. C does not create a new property tax. The tradeoff is that City funds committed to housing cannot be used for other General Fund priorities. Personally, I would rather have the flexibility than to commit to this, so I am voting “no” on Prop. C.

Proposition G revisits the future of the Upper Great Highway. In 2024, voters approved Proposition K, which closed the roadway to private vehicles and led to the creation of Sunset Dunes park. Prop. G would partially reverse that decision. The Upper Great Highway would reopen to private vehicles on weekdays, from Monday at 4 a.m. through Friday at 6 p.m., while remaining available for recreational use on weekends and certain holidays.

Supporters argue that weekday vehicle access could improve north to south transportation and reduce traffic diverted onto neighborhood streets. Opponents argue that maintaining a full-time coastal park provides recreational and neighborhood benefits. For real estate, both transportation convenience and access to parks can influence how buyers view a neighborhood. The impact could therefore differ considerably depending on a property’s location and an individual buyer’s priorities. We have experienced what it is like with the Upper Great Highway closed 24/7, and I value time and efficiency over recreation, especially when there is still access to many nearby recreational areas. I am voting “yes” on Prop. G.

Proposition H would have the clearest direct financial impact on many homeowners out of these five measures. It would establish a 15-year parcel tax beginning in 2027 to support Muni operations. The amount would generally depend on the type and size of the property rather than its assessed value.

For a single-family home or condominium of 3,000 square feet or less, the initial tax would be $129 per year. Larger homes would pay more. Multifamily buildings of 5,000 square feet or less would initially pay $249, while qualifying commercial and mixed-use properties of that size would pay $799. The amounts would increase with inflation. Some owner occupants age 65 and older could qualify for reductions or exemptions. Renters could also be affected. Owners of rent controlled properties could pass through up to 50% of the tax to tenants, capped at $65 per unit annually.

From a real estate perspective, there’s a tradeoff that is difficult to quantify. Additional taxes increase ownership costs, while transportation service and accessibility can also influence neighborhood desirability. Muni is important to us; however, I believe that the City should budget for and fund this rather than continually asking to raise property taxes to do so. I am voting “no” on Prop. H.

Proposition I changes how San Francisco allocates the transfer tax on properties valued at $10 million or more. Half would continue going toward general City purposes, while half would be dedicated to specified affordable housing programs. There is no increase in taxes.

Once again, I value flexibility instead of a rigid allocation. I am voting “no” on Prop. I.

Proposition J concerns properties transferred through foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Beginning March 1, 2027, it would remove an existing transfer tax exemption for certain commercial and larger residential properties acquired through foreclosure.

The exemption would remain for single-family homes, condominiums, co-ops, individual live/work units and qualifying residential or mixed-use properties with fewer than five residential units. Prop. J therefore would primarily affect lenders, investors and larger multifamily or commercial properties rather than typical homeowners.

I really don’t understand the rationale behind this except that if the government can charge the money, then charge the money. In a foreclosure situation, the lender is losing money due to the non-payment of the mortgage. They are not voluntarily buying the property, and I feel it is unfair to put more burden on them. I am voting “no” on Prop. J.

Prop. H has the most readily identifiable pocketbook effect for many homeowners because it creates an annual parcel tax. Prop. C could be particularly relevant to prospective buyers who may qualify for expanded down payment assistance. Props. I and J focus primarily on larger or specialized transactions. Prop. G is different. Its potential impact depends heavily on location and how voters value transportation access, neighborhood traffic and recreational open space.

Housing supply, transportation, taxes, parks, rents and development costs all interact with San Francisco’s real estate market.

No matter what your positions are on these measures, please do vote on Nov. 3

John M. Lee is a top selling broker with the JODI Group, specializing in real estate sales in the Richmond and Sunset districts. If you have questions about real estate, call 415-465-0505 or email johnlee@isellsf.com.