Per City Attorney, SF as city and county does not have that option. Obviously we wanted to dedicate and City Attorney was clear we could not.

L.A. was modeled on our victory. We advised some of the activists who led their campaign.

These are big wins.

And here’s the ordinance, also unanimous, that expands on intent and implementation

Here’s the resolution. 11-0. This was not controversial until the YIMBY-backed mayor decided to exclude social housing from the mayor’s annual budget.

Per city attorney, any transfer tax in SF goes to general fund as general tax, but the BOS can make their intent clear, which was done by unanimous vote, and the voter information & campaigns stated that intent. Literally only YIMBYs oppose using the money for social housing. Let that sink in.

You can keep lying all you want, but here’s the important question. Do you support using all Prop I revenue for social housing?

Yes, he could do what a unanimous Board directed. Instead we are in the mind blowing situation where mayors won’t allocate $ intended for social housing to social housing.

We were able to claw back hundreds of millions for housing despite this under Breed, despite opp from mayor & YIMBY-back supes

Wild that you call yourself a housing advocate. Have you lifted a finger to tax the rich for social housing? Have you asked the elected officials your org endorses to allocate Prop I funds as intended to social housing? Nope. Too busy lobbing disingenuous attacks on those doing the work.

YIMBY politicians could budget the fund for social housing as everyone, including a unanimous BOS, intended. Instead they are wasting everyone’s time in an effort to undermine taxes on the rich. Mind blowing that YIMBY leaders wouldn’t just call for Breed and now Lurie to fund social housing now

Here's the blog post I referenced