Measure I: I - Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax
San Francisco County · San Francisco County · November 3, 2026
The question on your ballot
Shall the City permanently dedicate half of the transfer tax revenues collected when certain real estate with a value or sales price of more than $10,000,000 changes hands, which will continue to be taxed at rates of 5.5% to 6%, to be spent only on affordable housing, including social housing developments and housing assistance, and exempt certain sales from the dedicated portion of the tax, for an estimated annual revenue decrease of approximately $1 million?
In plain language
Measure I would change how San Francisco uses money from its real estate transfer tax. A YES vote permanently sends half the transfer tax to affordable housing. This applies to property sales over $10,000,000, still taxed at 5.5% to 6%. The housing money can include social housing and housing assistance. Some sales would be exempt from this dedicated share. A NO vote keeps the transfer tax money as it is used now. The measure is expected to cut revenue by about $1 million a year.
Fiscal impact
Annual revenue would drop by about $1 million. The transfer tax rate on affected sales stays at 5.5% to 6%.
Impartial analysis
The Way It Is Now: The City collects a transfer tax when most real estate changes hands. The tax rates depend on the property’s sales price or value and the two highest tax rates are: • 5.5% for properties between $10,000,000 and under $25,000,000, and • 6% for properties at $25,000,000 or more. Some real estate transfers are exempt from the tax or are subject to reduced rates. Revenues generated from the transfer tax may be spent for any governmental purpose. The Board of Supervisors (Board) may amend, reduce, suspend, or repeal the transfer tax without voter approval. Voters must approve any increase of the transfer tax. State law limits the total revenue, including tax revenue, the City may spend each year. The voters may approve increases to this limit for up to four years. The Proposal: Proposition I would dedicate half of the transfer tax revenues when certain real estate with a value or sales price of more than $10,000,000 changes hands, to be spent only on affordable housing, including social housing developments and housing assistance. Specifically, the measure would: Transfer Tax For properties with a sales price or value between $10,000,000 and under $25,000,000: • Reduce the current transfer tax from 5.5% to 2.75% • Impose a new transfer tax of 2.75% For properties with a sales price or value at $25,000,000 or more: • Reduce the transfer tax from 6% to 3% • Impose a new transfer tax of 3% This measure will not increase the tax rate on the transfer of any property above what is charged today. The same exemptions and tax reductions from the current transfer tax would still apply to the new transfer tax. The new transfer tax would also exempt the first sale of certain multifamily real estate if it is sold within 5 years of completion of new residential units. Tax Revenue Spending The City could spend revenue from the new transfer tax only on: • At least 60% for affordable housing production, with at least half to social housing developments; • At least 25% towards the acquisition or rehabilitation of affordable housing, with at least 60% to acquisition of existing housing units; and • At least 10% to tenant stabilization/homeless prevention programs, with at least half to eviction defense and prevention; The Board could only change the transfer tax consistent with the purpose of the tax. All other changes would require voter approval. Proposition I would approve an unlimited number of new affordable housing units for low-income households funded by revenue from the new transfer tax. Proposition I would require the City to submit annual reports to the Board and Mayor on the use of the new tax revenue. Proposition I would increase the City’s spending limit for four years. A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to dedicate half of the transfer tax revenues when certain real estate with a value or sales price of more than $10,000,000 changes hands, to be spent only on affordable housing, including social housing developments and housing assistance. A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes.
Official ballot arguments
Filed for the official voter guide by each side, printed as submitted.
Argument in favor
YES ON I: KEEP THE PROMISE. AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH NO NEW TAXES. San Francisco’s housing crisis is pushing families, seniors, teachers, nurses, artists, immigrants, and young people out of the city they love. In 2020, voters approved a tax on the sale of properties worth more than $10 million, specifically so that money could fund affordable housing and rent relief. It worked until politicians ignored the will of voters. This tax on San Francisco’s wealthiest property owners provided emergency rent relief to more than 10,000 households and helped preserve and build hundreds of affordable homes. But it wasn’t guaranteed. In the past two years, none of this revenue has gone to affordable housing. Prop I will finally keep the promise and implement the measure voters approved. • Doesn’t raise taxes -- uses only revenue from a tax voters already approved. • Cuts the transfer tax for new housing construction, so we keep building the homes we need. • Independent oversight -- mandatory annual audits by the City Controller, filed publicly. • The only measure on the ballot that guarantees both innovative social housing and ongoing rental assistance. This November, San Franciscans have a historic opportunity: two measures on the ballot that guarantee affordable housing funding without raising anyone’s taxes. Vote YES on Prop I to guarantee this funding finally does what voters intended. Read more: YesonISF.com Affordable Housing Alliance San Francisco Tenants Union Small Business Forward United Educators of San Francisco Service Employees International Union SEIU 1021 Council of Community Housing Coalitions Faith in Action Bay Area Senior and Disability Action Anti Displacement Coalition Community Tenants Association Housing Rights Committee Tenants Together Democratic Socialist of America - San Francisco San Franciscans for Social Housing — Read more: YesonISF.com; Affordable Housing Alliance; San Francisco Tenants Union; Small Business Forward; United Educators of San Francisco; Service Employees International Union SEIU 1021; Council of Community Housing Coalitions; Faith in Action Bay Area; Senior and Disability Action; Anti Displacement Coalition; Community Tenants Association; Housing Rights Committee; Tenants Together; Democratic Socialist of America - San Francisco; San Franciscans for Social Housing
DON’T BE FOOLED: PROP I CREATES A NONPROFIT SLUSH FUND AND DOESN’T GUARANTEE NEW HOUSING Prop I’s proponents say this measure “keeps the promise” of affordable housing without raising taxes. That is not what Prop I does. Prop I would lock roughly $120 million a year away from the General Fund without requiring that a single new unit of housing be built. 30% must go to “social housing.” Another 25% can go to nonprofits to buy existing apartments. Another 10% can fund nonprofit programs that do not build new homes. Five percent can go to administration. That means at least 70% of the money does not have to build housing. Audits do not fix Prop I’s fundamental flaw. It can be perfectly audited and still spend most of its money without building a single new home. A transfer-tax cut does not change that. How much new housing does Prop I require? None. The budget damage goes further. Pulling $120 million out of the General Fund shrinks funding baselines, including Muni’s. Amid a Muni funding crisis, Prop I would drastically cut transit funding while reducing resources for firefighters, public safety, clean streets, and other essential services. The San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council represents workers who actually build housing. We support affordable housing, not a measure that promises housing without guaranteeing new homes. Vote NO on Prop I. San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council — San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council
Argument against
Vote NO on the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act. While affordable housing is an important priority, locking transfer tax revenues into rigid set-asides is fiscal mismanagement that threatens San Francisco’s financial stability. 1. Creates Dangerous Budget Earmarks San Francisco’s General Fund pays for vital everyday services—including police officers, firefighters, 911 dispatchers, street cleaning, and public parks. Carving out transfer tax revenues into a restricted fund starves the General Fund of essential dollars, forcing severe service cuts across the city during lean budget years. 2. Relies on Highly Volatile Revenue Real estate transfer taxes are notoriously unpredictable. Basing housing commitments on real estate sales creates an unstable funding cycle that collapses whenever property values or commercial transactions drop. Managing long-term programs on volatile tax revenues is fiscally reckless. 3. Deepens Downtown Economic Stagnation San Francisco’s commercial real estate market is already struggling with historically high vacancy rates. Increasing burden or restricting tax policy on high-value properties discourages investment, depresses property values, and weakens our overall tax base—ultimately reducing total revenue available for public services. 4. Reduces Flexibility and Oversight City leaders need the flexibility to adapt to economic downturns and emerging local emergencies. Tying revenue up in permanent structural mandates removes budget oversight and prevents the City from reallocating resources where they are needed most. Protect core city services and financial stability. Vote NO on Measure I. Judge Quentin L Kopp San Francisco Taxpayers Association — Judge Quentin L Kopp; San Francisco Taxpayers Association
YES ON I — AFFORDABLE HOUSING. NO NEW TAXES. Opponents call affordable housing “an important priority.” They’re right. But they oppose Prop I, which builds affordable housing without raising taxes. That’s plain wrong. San Francisco’s state-mandated housing plan calls for 46,000 affordable homes to be built by 2031. Prop I is a step forward. It will create thousands of affordable homes without costing taxpayers a dime. Prop I keeps a promise made to voters in 2020 which city hall politicians have ignored. It requires the city to use an existing tax on sales of properties valued at ten million dollars or more to fund affordable housing. For the first few years, politicians kept the promise. But over the last two years, not one dollar of this revenue has gone to housing. Prop I is accountable: • Every dollar in Prop I will be managed by the Mayor’s Office of Housing • Mandatory annual audits will be conducted by the City Controller • Taxes on new housing are reduced to encourage growth • And it won’t raise taxes! Our housing crisis demands innovative solutions, not tired opposition from people who have opposed affordable housing for decades. Join us and Vote Yes on I. Council of Community Housing Organizations San Francisco Tenants Union Small Business Forward Affordable Housing Alliance Service Employees International Union SEIU 1021 Senior and Disability Action SF Anti Displacement Coalition Housing Rights Committee Democratic Socialists of America - San Francisco San Franciscans for Social Housing — Council of Community Housing Organizations; San Francisco Tenants Union; Small Business Forward; Affordable Housing Alliance; Service Employees International Union SEIU 1021; Senior and Disability Action; SF Anti Displacement Coalition; Housing Rights Committee; Democratic Socialists of America - San Francisco; San Franciscans for Social Housing
What supporters and opponents say — outside sources (not official ballot arguments)
Statements by campaigns, officials and news coverage, quoted with attribution and linked to the original. VoterDecoder did not write them and does not endorse either side.
Supporters say
No public statements in favor were found.
Opponents say
No public statements against were found.