No on Proposition I
Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax
What is it?
San Francisco charges a transfer tax every time property changes hands. The rate rises with the price: sales of $10M or more pay 5.5%, and sales of $25M or more pay 6%, the second-highest rate in the state after Los Angeles. Prop I keeps those rates and changes where the money goes. Today the whole tax flows into the City's General Fund, the account the Board of Supervisors budgets each year for everything from parks to police. Prop I would split the tax on sales of $10M or more down the middle: half keeps going to the General Fund, and half becomes a separate tax that can only be spent on subsidized housing and homelessness prevention. Sales under $10M are untouched.
It would also prevent the Board of Supervisors from lowering the tax without a vote of the people.
New buildings with 4 or more homes, sold within 5 years of initial construction, are exempt from half of the tax on that first sale. It is a modest tax cut for developers.
How the restricted money would be spent
- At least 60% would go to building new subsidized housing, with half of that reserved for "social housing" projects where residents share in management and, where feasible, ownership through structures like community land trusts and limited-equity co-ops, which cap resale values
- At least 25% would go to preservation, with most of that buying rent-controlled buildings and SROs and the rest rehabilitating existing subsidized housing
- At least 10% would go to eviction legal defense and emergency rental assistance
- Up to 5% can be used for administration, with refunds paid separately and not subject to that cap
Read the full annotated legal text →
Click to show fiscal impacts and more detailsCollapse details
Click to show fiscal impacts and more detailsCollapse details
Fiscal impacts
The measure does not change the total transfer tax rate on any sale. It converts roughly half of the revenue from sales of $10M or more from money the City can spend on anything into money reserved for the housing programs above. First sales of new multifamily buildings would pay half of today's rate.
According to the Controller's Office, the new exemption for certain recently built multifamily properties would cut the City's overall revenue by about $1M per year starting in FY 2027-28.
The bigger effect is the shift. The Controller estimates the measure moves $120M per year out of the General Fund, which the City can spend on any purpose, and into a fund restricted to affordable housing, which would collect about $119M per year. Because that money leaves the General Fund, the Controller says the measure increases the City's projected General Fund deficit by $120M per year. That deficit is currently projected at $741.7M in FY 2028-29 and $1.1B in FY 2029-30.
The Controller notes the new fund would be the City's 24th voter-mandated funding requirement. Those requirements already total about $2B, or 30% of the roughly $7B in General Fund sources.
Why is this on the ballot?
This was placed on the ballot by collecting signatures from voters. It needs simple majority of 50% + 1 to pass.
- Placed on ballot by: Voter signature petition. The campaign submitted more than 20,000 signatures to the Department of Elections on July 2, 2026.
- Proponents: Scott Feeney and Tuesday Rose Thornton. The measure was filed by members of the San Francisco chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America in May 2026.
Why vote No?
Prop I would remove $120M per year from the City's General Fund (the account that pays for most city services), and dedicate it to a small list of preferred housing programs. The City already projects a $741.7M deficit, so every rerouted dollar is a cut to parks, street cleaning, or public safety. It would be the City's 24th voter-mandated spending requirement.
Prop I also locks in San Francisco's transfer tax (the second highest in the state!). Today the Board of Supervisors can lower it by ordinance. Under Prop I, only voters could, and the measure even reverses any cut the Board makes before it takes effect. When Los Angeles taxed big property sales this way, sales fell 38%, and the lost property taxes offset much of what it raised. The rates in question are only six years old: in November 2020, voters passed a measure written by former Supervisor Dean Preston that doubled the transfer tax on sales of $10M or more, from 2.75% to 5.5% and from 3% to 6%. Preston has championed this measure, which would put those rates beyond the Board's reach.
We support real money for subsidized housing. That's why we endorsed Prop C, which grows the Housing Trust Fund to $125M per year and lets the Board pause contributions in bad budget years.
Vote no on Prop I.