City of San Francisco Initiative to Restrict Short-Term Rentals, Proposition F (November 2015)

Voting on Housing

Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

Local housing
Rent control

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 1.1 Responses
* 2 Provisions and changes
* 2.1 Maximum days of rental
* 2.2 Interested parties with legal standing
* 2.3 Online hosting platforms
* 2.4 In-law units
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Ballot question
* 3.2 Ballot summary
* 3.3 Full text
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.2 Arguments in favor
* 4.3 Private action lawsuits
* 4.4 Campaign finance
* 4.5 Editorials
* 4.6 Campaign ads
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Opponents
* 5.2 Arguments against
* 5.3 Private action lawsuits
* 5.4 Campaign finance
* 5.5 Campaign ads
* 5.6 Editorials
* 6 Billboard ad campaign
* 6.1 Negative responses
* 6.2 Airbnb apology
* 7 Background
* 7.1 City ordinances
* 7.2 Televised debate
* 8 Polls
* 8.1 September 2015
* 8.2 July 2015
* 9 Reports and analyses
* 9.1 City's budget and legislative analysis
* 9.2 Chief Economist Ted Egan
* 9.3 Ballot simplification digest
* 9.4 Controller analysis
* 10 Path to the ballot
* 11 Other elections
* 11.1 Mayoral election
* 11.2 Board of supervisors
* 12 Related measures
* 13 Recent news
* 14 See also
* 15 External links
* 15.1 Support
* 15.2 Opposition
* 16 Additional reading
* 17 Footnotes

An initiative to restrict short-term rentals, Proposition F, was on the ballot for voters in San Francisco, California, on November 3, 2015. It was defeated.

Proposition F was sometimes referred to as the Airbnb Initiative.

This measure, which proved the most contentious measure on the San Francisco ballot, would have imposed restrictions on private, short-term housing rentals. It would have restricted all such private rentals to 75 nights per year and imposed provisions designed to ensure such private rentals were paying hotel taxes and following city code. It would also have required guest and revenue reports from rental hosts and "hosting platforms" every three months. Moreover, Proposition F was designed to prohibit the use of "in-law" units for short-term rentals and enact regulations concerning privacy, peace and quiet. Proposition F would have allowed enforcement of its provisions by the city, as well as authorizing private action lawsuits by "interested parties"—defined as anyone living within 100 feet—against those suspected of violating the law.[1]

The initiative was motivated by and targeted websites such as Airbnb and Homeaway, which feature rental listings nation- and world-wide. It was proposed by a coalition of land owners, housing advocates, neighborhood groups and unions—especially those representing hotels—called Share Better SF. In the interest of easy enforcement, the initiative would have focused on penalties for websites that posted rental listings that did not comply with city law, as well as punishing individual home owners or sub-leasers. The fines proposed for websites featuring illegal posts would have ranged from $250 to $1,000 per day for each non-compliant post. Estimates showed the fines for a website such as Airbnb could have added up to millions of dollars unless a way was found to keep listings in accordance with the proposed city law. The campaign opposing Proposition F had received $8,377,784 in campaign contributions as of October 17, 2015. Out of the total contributions received by the opposing campaign, over 95 percent was donated by Airbnb. The support campaign had collected $778,488 as of October 17, 2015.[1][2][3][4]

Two related ordinances were introduced to the city's board of supervisors. The most restrictive ordinance was designed to be more stringent than this initiative, limiting short-term rentals to 60 days per year for any given unit. The more lenient of the bills was designed to allow up to 120 days per year. Proponents of the citizen initiative said they would be satisfied by the more strict set of regulations, but would continue with this initiative petition effort if the city supervisors did nothing or chose to enact the less restrictive ordinance. The board of supervisors proved divided over the proposals in a meeting on June 9, 2015. They postponed a decision until a later meeting. On July 14, 2015, the board of supervisors approved an amended version of the more lenient of the two ordinances, which was opposed by Share Better SF. The ordinance continued to allow unlimited hosted short-term rentals and the use of in-law units for short-term rentals.[5][6]

Housing was one of the most important issues in the city's 2015 election. Gabriel Metcalf, president and CEO of public policy research company SPUR, said, “It’s the No. 1 issue in every poll.” Five propositions on the ballot dealt with housing and development, either directly or indirectly, and proposed solutions for the housing availability issues facing the city were essential to candidate platforms. Voters decided housing-related propositions that addressed affordable housing bonds, restrictions on short-term rentals, a moratorium on market-rate construction in the city's Mission District, housing developments on surplus public lands and a specific development proposal on the waterfront.[7]

## Election results[edit]

San Francisco, Proposition F

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 111,348| 55.59%
Yes|  88,945|  44.41%

Election results from San Francisco Elections Office

### Responses[edit]

Chris Lehane, Airbnb’s head of global public policy, said, “This election was a victory. This effort shows that home sharing is both a community and a movement.”[8]

Dale Carlson, co-founder of the coalition behind Proposition F, said, “Losing is always a disappointment. But our coalition is proud of what was accomplished,” pointing out that the pro-Prop F campaign was outspent by a large margin.[8]

Davey Alba, writing for Wired, wrote that, while an important symbolic victory, the approval of Proposition F did not signify the end of the political battle. He reminded his readers that the board of supervisors could pass additional restrictions on short-term rentals at any time and predicted:

“  |

So, yes, while the election is a symbolic moment of victory for Airbnb and its supporters in its hometown, the tensions gripping San Francisco—a city that has come to epitomize the tech industry and the rapid changes it engenders—aren’t about to disappear.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—Davey Alba[8]

## Provisions and changes[edit]

Ballotpedia videos, "Ballotpedia's Fast Facts: San Francisco Proposition F," October 29, 2015

### Maximum days of rental[edit]

This initiative would have limited both hosted and unhosted short-term rentals to a maximum of 75 days per year. A hosted rental is a unit that is rented out while a permanent resident also resides at the unit during the rental period. An unhosted rental is the rental of a unit at which no permanent residents reside during the rental period. Without the approval of Proposition F, city law continued to allow 90 days of unhosted short-term rentals for any given unit and unlimited hosted short-term rentals.[10]

### Interested parties with legal standing[edit]

This initiative would have established anyone who lives within 100 feet of a unit used for short-term rentals as an "interested party" with legal standing to sue violators of the initiative. Since Proposition F was defeated, city law continued to dictate that an "interested party" is any person who lives in the same building as the short-term unit in question. Proposition F was also have given legal standing to any housing-related nonprofit.[10]

### Online hosting platforms[edit]

This initiative would have made it illegal for any hosting website, such as Airbnb, to list a short-term rental unit if the unit was not eligible for rent according to city law. Thus, Airbnb would have been required to remove the listing for any unit that had been rented out for more than 75 days in any given year. Moreover, this initiative would have allowed any "interested party" to sue the hosting platform or his or her neighbor for any listing in violation of the law. Without the approval of Proposition F, city law continued to not require hosting platforms to remove listings in accordance to city law and remained silent about the legal standing of interested parties to sue online hosting platforms.[10]

### In-law units[edit]

The city's laws, as of the beginning of 2015, allowed in-law units to be rented as unhosted short-term rentals, subject to the 90 day annual cap. Proposition F was designed to prohibit the use of in-law units for short-term rentals entirely. Since Proposition F was rejected, the city continued to allow in-law unit rentals.[10]

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following question for this measure appeared on the ballot:[10]

“  |

Shall the City limit short-term rentals of a housing unit to 75 days per year regardless of whether the rental is hosted or unhosted; require owners to provide proof that they authorize the unit as a short-term rental; require residents who offer short-term rentals to submit quarterly reports on the number of days they live in the unit and the number of days the unit is rented; prohibit short-term rentals of in-law units; allow interested parties to sue hosting platforms; and make it a misdemeanor for a hosting platform to unlawfully list a unit as a short-term rental?[9]

|  ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The following summary of this initiative appeared on the ballot:[11]

“  |

San Francisco limits short-term rentals of residential units. A rental is “short-term” if the term is less than 30 days. The purpose of these limits is to prohibit converting rental units from residential use to tourist use, and help preserve the availability of housing in San Francisco. These limits, set forth in San Francisco’s short-term residential rental law, include requirements in effect as of May 21, 2015 that:

* Only “permanent residents” may offer a residential unit for short-term rent. A “permanent resident” is someone who has occupied the unit for at least 60 consecutive days. Before offering a unit for short-term rental, permanent residents must register the unit with the City’s Planning Department.
* A permanent resident may not rent a residential unit on a short-term basis for more than 90 days per year if the resident does not live there during the rental period (“unhosted rentals”). There is no limit on the number of days per year for short-term rentals if the resident lives in the unit during the rental period (“hosted rentals”).
* “Hosting platforms,” which are individuals or businesses that provide a means for a person to advertise their residential unit for short-term rental, must notify users of the City’s regulations on short-term rentals.

The City’s law allows “interested parties” to sue violators. “Interested parties” include residents of the building where the residential unit is located, the owner of the unit, and any housing nonprofit organization. But interested parties cannot sue hosting platforms for violating the City’s law. The City may sue any violator.

Under the City’s law, it is a misdemeanor for an owner or tenant to unlawfully rent a unit as a short-term rental.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering various amendments to the City’s law to change these requirements and enforcement provisions.

This measure would limit allowed short-term rentals of a unit to 75 days per year, regardless of whether the rental is hosted or unhosted. Hosting platforms would have to stop listing a unit for short-term rental once that unit has been rented on a short-term basis for more than 75 days in a calendar year.

This measure would require that Planning Department applications for inclusion in the shortterm rental registry contain proof that the unit’s owner authorizes using the unit as a short-term rental. After including a unit on the registry, the Planning Department would be required to post a notice on the site of the unit stating that it has been approved for use as a short-term rental.

The Department would also be required to mail that notice to the owners and neighbors of the unit.

This measure would prohibit short-term rental of in-law units.

This measure would expand the definition of “interested parties” who can sue to enforce the City’s law to include people living within 100 feet of the unit. It would also allow interested parties to sue hosting platforms for violations.

This measure would make it a misdemeanor for a housing platform to unlawfully list a unit as a short-term rental.[9]

|  ”

|
|

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the proposed initiative is available here.

Share Better SF campaign logo

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

The coalition behind this measure was called Share Better SF. The Share Better SF campaign was largely funded by Unite Here, a union representing mainly hotel and service industry workers.[12]

Supervisor David Campos introduced an ordinance that would have been even more restrictive than this initiative. Share Better SF announced that, unless Campos' bill was approved, it would move forward with the initiative petition effort. Ultimately, a weaker ordinance restricting short-term rentals to 90 days per year was approved by the city council.[5]

The Share Better SF website listed the following endorsements of a "yes" vote on Proposition F:[13]

Individuals:

* U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)
* Former Mayor Art Agnos
* State Senator Mark Leno (D-11)
* Former Assemblyman Tom Ammiano
* Judge Quentin Kopp (Retired)
* Supervisor John Avalos
* Supervisor David Campos
* Supervisor Jane Kim
* Supervisor Eric Mar
* Supervisor Norman Yee
* Board of Education member Sandra Fewer
* Community College Board Trustee Rafael Mandelman
* Community College Board Trustee John Rizzo
* Kathrin Moore, Planning Commissioner
* Dennis Richards, Planning Commissioner
* Cindy Wu, Planning Commissioner
* Former City Attorney Louise Renne
* Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin
* Former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez
* Former Supervisor Jake McGoldrick
* Former Planning Commissioner Dennis Antenore
* Former Planning Commissioner Doug Engmann
* Former Planning Commissioner Esther Marks
* Former Planning Commissioner Bill Sugaya
* Former Planning Commissioner Wayne Hu
* Democratic County Central Committee member Meghan Levitan

Labor organizations and unions:

* The American Federation of Teachers 2121
* Jobs with Justice SF
* San Francisco Building and Trades Council
* San Francisco Labor Council[14]
* SEIU 1021
* UNITE HERE, Local 2[2]
* United Educators of San Francisco

Organizations:

* Affordable Housing Alliance
* AIDS Housing Alliance
* Anti-Eviction Mapping Project
* Bernal Heights Democratic Club
* Causa Justa Just Cause
* Chinatown Community Development Center
* Chinatown Tenants Association
* Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
* Coleman Action Fund for Children
* Council of Community Housing Organizations
* District 3 Democratic Club
* D5 Action
* District 8 Democratic Club
* District 11 Democratic Club

* Eviction Free SF
* FDR Democratic Club
* Gray Panthers
* Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council
* Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
* Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association’s
Transportation and Planning Committee
* Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
* Keep Neighborhoods First
* Latino Democratic Club
* New Avenues Democratic Club
* Potrero Boosters
* Potrero Hill Democratic Club
* Richmond District Democratic Club

* San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition
* San Francisco Apartment Association
* San Francisco Human Services Network
* San Francisco Information Clearinghouse
* San Francisco Rising
* San Francisco Taxpayers Association
* San Francisco Tenants Union
* San Francisco Tomorrow
* San Francisco Women’s Political Committee
* Senior & Disability Action
* Sierra Club
* South Beach District 6 Democratic Club
* West of Twin Peaks Central Council
* Yerba Buena Consortium

|
|

### Arguments in favor[edit]

Supporters of the initiative argued that the city needed enforceable restrictions on the industry. They also argued that the unregistered, short-term rentals operating in the city resulted in illegal competition with the hotel and vacation rental industry by avoiding taxes and important city codes. Moreover, Share Better SF said, "San Francisco is facing its worst housing crisis in more than a century, with skyrocketing rents and home prices." The group claimed this initiative would help alleviate the city's housing problems by putting condos, apartments and houses back in the long-term rental market, instead of being reserved by owners for visitors and tourists in order to make a bigger profit.[2][12]

Initiative proponents also claimed the status of the private, short-term rental industry allowed unfair and damaging practices such as renters sub-leasing without the approval of owners, leading to damaged buildings without reparation or accountability and uninsured houses.[2]

Dale Carlson, a public relations professional working with the Share Better SF campaign, stated, “The wholesale conversion of residential units to short-term tourist accommodations takes a significant chunk out of available and affordable housing. ... We need laws and regulations governing short-term rentals to tourists that are enforceable. That means the hosting platforms have to have some skin in the game.” [1][2]

Malcolm Yeung, the deputy director of the Chinatown Community Development Center, blamed Airbnb and short-term rentals for the eviction and displacement of Chinatown residents. He recounted an instance that occurred in 2014 in which residents of Chinatown came to the center and complained about their landlord pressuring them to leave. Finally, after bending to the pressure and accepting a buyout, the tenants left, after which the units were posted on Airbnb for a much higher price.[15]

Total campaign cash
as of July 2016 (Final)

Support: |  $1,132,007
Opposition: |  $9,013,690

### Private action lawsuits[edit]

Responding to critics that said Proposition F would spur many lawsuits between neighbors, many of which would be frivolous or motivated by personal gain, Carlson said, “We firmly believe that if we give the city the tools it says it needs, that enforcement actions will pick up; the city will start doing its job and the private right of action will not be needed." He went on to defend provisions in Proposition F allowing for private lawsuits, saying, "If the city sits on your complaint and does nothing, you should have the ability to protect your right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of your home. If a neighbor has to go to all the trouble of doing all the work the city should otherwise be doing, why shouldn’t they be entitled to the same compensation as the city?”[16]

Joe Tobener, an attorney with experience in tenant rights and in cases surrounding short-term rental complaints, said, “Lawyers won’t bring claims that are invalid. The only people who will be pursued are bad actors who are violating the statute. It’s expensive to file these claims; you have to hire an investigator and have proof. If you ask an attorney to take a risk on a contingency case, there has to be enough value for them to do that.”[16]

### Campaign finance[edit]

The following final campaign contribution totals were provided by the San Francisco Ethics Commission.[4]

Committee  |  Amount raised  |  Amount spent

|
|

SF Tenants and Families for Affordable Housing  |  $455,886  |  $412,691
Share Better SF  |  $676,121  |  $725,876
Total | $1,132,007 | $1,138,567

The top 12 donors to the committee filed in support of Proposition F are listed below:[4]

Donor  |  Amount

|

Unite Here  |  $275,000
Unite Here Local 2 PAC  |  $120,000
CA Nurses Association PAC  |  $60,000
SEIU Local 1021  |  $50,000
American Hotel and Lodging Association  |  $49,000
Unite Here Local 2 General Fund  |  $35,000
Yerba Buena Consortium LLC  |  $35,000
United Educators of SF Candidate PAC  |  $31,500
Hotel Association of New York  |  $25,000
San Francisco Apartment Association PAC  |  $20,000
San Francisco Apartment Association  |  $20,000
Douglas Engmann  |  $20,000

### Editorials[edit]

The editorial board of the San Francisco Examiner endorsed a vote in favor of Proposition F. The board argued that the measure was necessary to curtail the loss of long-term rental housing in the city and to properly enforce existing laws regarding short-term rental. The board wrote:[17]

“  |

Proposition F, which seeks to impose stricter laws on short-term rentals, is needed to help stem the loss of rental units in this city, where the issue of affordability is displacing an increasing number of residents. This was a tough call for the Examiner because while we agree with this effort’s proponents that the short-term rental industry is having a negative impact on evictions and The City’s housing stock, we also recognize that in today’s market, short-term rentals are allowing some homeowners to survive here and make ends meet. Limiting rentals to 75 nights a year, as the measure would do, would hinder that ability.

San Francisco legalized short-term rentals in February, and created the Office of Short-Term Rental Administration and Enforcement in June. The staffing is inadequate to stop the abusers — those who convert entire buildings into hotels, or who rent out an apartment where they don’t live or those who fail to register and pay taxes — since the office is admittedly complaint-driven and not equipped to investigate the thousands of listings in The City. A remedy such as Prop. F is sorely needed since this administration and this current Board of Supervisors seems unable to recognize that giving private companies like Airbnb dominion over such an essential and scarce resource as The City’s rental units is bad policy.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—San Francisco Examiner editorial board[17]

### Campaign ads[edit]

> Dear Airbnb, Actions Speak Louder Than Apologies

> Join us if you've had enough with AirBNB - it's time to vote YES on Prop F!: http://bit.ly/nothanksairbnb

> Posted by Yes on F - ShareBetter SF on Friday, October 23, 2015

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

San Franciscans Against Prop F image

SF for Everyone logo

Airbnb, an online platform for private, short-term rental posts, opposed this initiative and was largely responsible for the funding to launch an organized anti-Proposition F campaign called San Francisco for Everyone, No on F.[1][18]

San Franciscans Against Prop F, which was not affiliated with Airbnb or any company or political party, also opposed Proposition F.[19]

The San Francisco branch of Airbnb set up a network of 11 short-term renter advocates, one for each city district, to support the industry and oppose restrictions such as this initiative.[20]

Home Sharers of San Francisco logo

Home Sharers of San Francisco, a local coalition of STR hosts, local businesses that benefit from local home sharing guests and other community members supportive of home sharing in San Francisco, opposed Proposition F.[21]

Home Sharers of San Francisco Democratic Club, a club chartered by the San Francisco Democratic Committee to advocate on behalf of home sharers, also worked toward defeating Proposition F.[22]

The Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) voted to endorse a "no" vote on Proposition F.[23]

Some members of the board of supervisors disapproved of this initiative and the similar ordinance proposed by Supervisor David Campos, arguing that the regulations were too strict and unreasonable. In general, this set of critics of strict restrictions on short-term rentals favored an alternative, more lenient ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mark Farrell. Although Airbnb was opposed to both restrictive ordinances as well as this initiative, the position of Farrell's supporters and short-term rental advocates coincided in so far as both groups opposed this initiative and Campos' ordinance.[5]

The No on Prop F website listed the following endorsements of a "no" vote on the measure:[24]

* San Francisco Democratic Party
* Lt Governor Gavin Newsom
* Mayor Ed Lee
* Assemblymember David Chiu
* Board of Supervisors President London Breed
* Supervisor Malia Cohen
* Supervisor Julie Christensen
* Supervisor Mark Farrell
* Supervisor Scott Wiener
* Board of Equalization Member Fiona Ma
* San Francisco Planning Commissioner Michael Antonini
* San Francisco Board of Education President Emily Murase
* San Francisco School Board Member Hydra Mendoza
* San Francisco Community College Trustee Alex Randolph
* San Francisco Community College Trustee Brigitte Davila

* San Francisco Republican Party
* Log Cabin Republicans of San Francisco
* Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth
* SF Chamber of Commerce
* Bay Area Council
* Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco
* San Francisco Firefighters Local 798
* Consumer Watchdog
* Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
* SF Young Democrats
* Asian Pacific Democratic Club
* Chinese American Democratic Club
* Latinos Unidos Democratic Club
* Noe Valley Democratic Club
* District 5 Democrats
* The Mission Democratic Club
* Progress Democratic Club of San Francisco

* Raoul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club
* Black Young Democrats of San Francisco
* Willie B. Kennedy Democratic Club
* SF Moderates
* San Francisco Technology Democrats (SF Tech Dems)
* The Internet Association
* The Parent PAC
* Greater Geary Boulevard Merchant & Property Owners Assn
* San Francisco Police Officers Association
* Dani Sheehan-Mayer - Owner, Cliche Noe Gifts & Home* (Noe Valley)
* Ike Shehadeh - Owner, Ike's Place (Castro)
* Jesse Woodward - Owner, HiTops and Hecho (Castro)
* Nelson Zhao - Chopsticks (Excelsior)
* Araceli Espinoza - Thalia’s Jewelry (Mission)
* JP Leddy, Vice President, Pan Hispanic Forum
* Scott Hague, CAL and Associates

|
|

### Arguments against[edit]

Airbnb logo

Opponents of this initiative argued that private, short-term rentals allow additional tourism in the city for people who could not otherwise afford it and in areas that would otherwise be off of the tourism grid. They also argued that the industry provides revenue for the city and a method for residents to make money through renting their property. Moreover, advocates of private rental practices claimed that putting up more red tape and restrictions would encourage more rental hosts to avoid registration, while lightening restrictions and mandatory reports would increase the number of voluntary registrants, as well as the hotel tax revenue for the city.[1]

San Franciscans Against Prop F posted the following argument against the initiative:

“  |

If it were to pass, it would unleash serious, negative consequences that would be essentially irreversible.

Proponents have sold Prop F as the solution to regulating short-term rentals, but the City just passed and amended sensible regulations of short-term rentals in July 2015. We need to give the current law time to work.

While the City builds out its enforcement resources for the law currently in place, Prop F would complicate that work by creating new laws that would:

* Privatize enforcement by creating a financial incentive to spy on and sue neighbors who might be hosting guests
* Arbitrarily ban homesharing for anyone who lives in an in-law unit
* Require the 50+ homesharing platforms operating in SF (such as Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway) to mass-collect and report private data to the government[9]

|  ”

|
|

—San Franciscans Against Prop F[19]

Opponents also argued that, since the board of supervisors cannot amend citizen initiatives, provisions of Proposition F would be practically irreversible and any problems with Proposition F would have to be fixed through a lengthy process involving another ballot measure. They claimed that this inflexibility would be especially bad since short-term rentals formed such a new and fluid industry.[19][25]

Airbnb representatives said, “This ballot proposal is nothing more than a Trojan Horse that would effectively ban home sharing, cost the city revenue, and make San Francisco unaffordable for thousands of families.”[1]

San Francisco for Everyone, "No on F Campaign Commercial," August 25, 2015

The Airbnb San Francisco website featured the following arguments in favor of allowing Airbnb and other home-sharing website hosts to operate freely in the city:

“  |

Home sharing and Airbnb are helping to fight economic inequality by giving every resident the opportunity to turn their apartment or home into an economic asset:

* More than 80% of Airbnb hosts share only the home in which they live and nearly three-quarters of Airbnb hosts use the income they earn to pay the bills and stay in their homes
* In San Francisco, nearly half of hosts are low or middle income

Airbnb guests spend more time and money in San Francisco and explore diverse neighborhoods and small businesses that haven’t benefited from tourism in the past:

* Airbnb generated $469 million in economic activity and supported 3600 jobs between April 2014 and March 2015
* 72% of Airbnb listings are outside the main hotel districts
* A typical Airbnb guest spends 5.0 nights in San Francisco compared to 3.5 nights for a typical hotel guest; and the typical Airbnb guest spends almost $300 more per trip than the typical hotel guest[9]

|  ”

|
|

—Airbnb San Francisco[20]

Critics of the initiative also opposed it on the basis of privacy, saying the initiative would violate the rights of property owners in an unacceptable way. John M. Simpson, the director of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project, wrote an article critiquing this initiative. He wrote:

“  |

Clearly local governments have the right to regulate home sharing and should collect taxes.

[...]

What government must not do is unnecessarily violate people’s privacy on a wholesale basis and turn businesses into an enforcement arm of government.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—John M. Simpson[26]

Simpson went on to claim that this unnecessary violation was exactly the means proposed by the short-term housing rental initiative, as well as a similar ordinance proposed by supervisors David Campos, John Avalos and Eric Mar.

He concluded:

“  |

The Campos ordinance and the ballot initiative would require home-sharing sites to routinely turn over to San Francisco individuals’ private financial information about the number of nights they rented their homes and amount paid for the rental of their property through the site. It is an unprecedented data dump.

Traditionally, search warrants and subpoenas are needed to get a corporation to turn over an individual’s personal financial data. Campos and the Engmann group would turn this upside down.

Instead, officials should investigate specific alleged violations when there is a clear justification and limited necessary records could be subpoenaed. Individual audits could be required when there was a good reason to believe someone was not paying their occupancy tax.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—John M. Simpson[26]

Opponents also argued that Prop F was designed to inflict unreasonable penalties for violations.[25]

### Private action lawsuits[edit]

Opposition campaign image

Opponents of Proposition F also argued that Proposition F would allow frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits between neighbors, with many lawsuits motivated by personal gain. Specifically, critics point to provisions that would have allowed for private lawsuits against those suspected of violating Proposition F and other provisions that did not require damages or legal fees to be paid by the plaintiffs if the allegations were found to be false. Chris Lehane, head of Airbnb's global policy and public affairs, said, “This will lead to lawsuit vigilantism. People will be able to fire off lawsuits left and right, as opposed to government playing its role as the umpire. When the umpire calls you out, you’re out. That’s why we have objective third parties to make decisions. This is an effort to do an end run around city government.”

Defenders of Proposition F responded by saying that Proposition F was designed to give tools to the city to enforce short-term rental rules, rather than encouraging private lawsuits. To this argument, critics responded by questioning why the proposition was designed to allow private lawsuits between neighbors at all. David Jacoby, who appeared with his wife, Kim, in an ad run by Airbnb against Proposition F, said, “There are financial incentives to encourage neighbors to try to make money on one another; that’s not the neighborhood I want to live in. Accused (hosts) would have to pay to defend themselves, even if they haven’t done anything illegal. If the defendant (host) wins, the complainant doesn’t have to pay their legal fees, even if it was a frivolous lawsuit.”[16]

### Campaign finance[edit]

The following final campaign contribution and expenditure totals were reported by the San Francisco Ethics Commission.[4]

Committee  |  Amount raised  |  Amount spent

|
|

San Francisco for Everyone, No on F  |  $9,013,690  |  $9,064,180
Total | $9,013,690 | $9,064,180

Airbnb donated almost $8.5 million of the opposition's war chest, amounting to over over 90 percent of the total campaign contributions.[4]

### Campaign ads[edit]

San Francisco for Everyone, "Prop F Bans Short-Term Rental of In-Law Units - No on F Commercial," September 8, 2015

San Francisco for Everyone, "Prop F Violates Privacy - No on F Commercial," September 8, 2015

San Francisco for Everyone, "Prop F Encourages Neighbor on Neighbor Lawsuits - No on F Commercial," September 8, 2015

San Francisco for Everyone, "Prop F Would Allow Collection of Your Private Information," September 21, 2015

San Francisco for Everyone, "Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom says "Vote No on Prop. F"," October 5, 2015

San Francisco for Everyone, "What Will Happen if Prop F Passes?" September 25, 2015

### Editorials[edit]

The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board wrote an article recommending a "No" vote on Proposition F. The board argued that, while the proposition would have closed significant loopholes in San Francisco's short-term rental policy, a ballot measure was not a good way to go about addressing these issues. Deciding the issue by a vote would require further votes for any future changes to the policy, which the board argued would not adequately allow for necessary updates. Additionally, the board argued that there were problems with the legislation itself:[27]

“  |

Ballot-box planning is a bad approach even for a measure that is perfect for the moment. This one is not. One of its enforcement mechanisms would allow neighbors or groups to sue the host of a short-term rental even if the city has determined that no violation has occurred. It opens the potential for mischief and frivolous lawsuits by antagonistic neighbors.

It also would remove the distinction between hosted short-term rentals — in which the resident is present during the stay — and unhosted ones. This is an area that merits further study; a reasonable case can be made that a vacationer is less likely to be disruptive to a neighborhood when the resident is present.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—San Francisco Chronicle editorial board[27]

## Billboard ad campaign[edit]

In late October 2015, Airbnb launched a billboard ad campaign throughout the city. The billboards were all in the form of a letter from Airbnb to different city departments that referred to the approximately $12 million in hotel tax revenue received by the city in 2014-2015 from short-term rentals. Below are some examples of the ads:[28]

|  “  |

Dear Public Library System,

We hope you use some of the $12 million in hotel taxes to keep the library open later.

Love, Airbnd

Dear Parking Enforcement,

Please use the $12 million in hotel taxes to feed all expired parking meters.

Love, Airbnb

Dear Public Works,

Please use the $12 million in hotel taxes to build more bike lanes, like this one.

Love, Airbnb (quote)This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

|  ”

|
|

|  “  |

Dear Board of Education,

Please use some of the $12 million in hotel taxes to keep art in schools.

Love, Airbnb

Dear SF Tax Collector,

You know the $12 million in hotel taxes?

Don't spend it all in one place.

Love, Airbnb[9]

|  ”

|
|

Image of the most controversial Airbnb ad

### Negative responses[edit]

Examples of tweets about the ads

The ads received a significant amount of criticism. An SF Weekly article stated the ads were "the equivalent of being rude to a public worker and then yelling, 'I PAY YOUR SALARY.'" Many criticized the ad campaign as passive-aggressive and ill-conceived. Martha Kenney, an assistant professor at San Francisco State, posted a letter of her own on Facebook directed at Airbnb. Kenney's post was shared over a thousand times within two days. Kenney wrote, "I'm happy to hear that you paid your taxes this year. I did too! Isn't it Awesome?" She then said she calculated that only 1.4 percent of the $12 million in hotel taxes referred to by the Airbnb ad campaign went to libraries, amounting to about $168,000.[29]

Kenney concluded, "However, had you donated that $8 million you spent fighting Proposition F directly to the public libraries you love so much, that could have made a bigger difference. Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20. Love, Martha Kenney (San Francisco resident)."[29]

Some responded by saying the ads were not executed well, but that the strong negative response was an overreaction. One tweet said, "Yeah. I didn't think they were horribly offensive. Coulda used a little less snark maybe but they weren't the worst." A huge majority of social media posts, however, were very critical of the ad campaign.[30]

### Airbnb apology[edit]

On October 22, 2015, Airbnb issued a statement in response to the criticism leveled at the campaign. An excerpt of the statement is below:[28]

“  |

The intent was to show the hotel tax contribution from our hosts and guests, which is roughly $1 million per month. It was the wrong tone and we apologize to anyone who was offended. These ads are being taken down immediately.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—Airbnb[28]

## Background[edit]

Prior to February 2015, the city banned private, short-term rentals, but did not dedicate sufficient resources to fully enforce the law. In February 2015, the city legalized the practice and included a registration and taxation system.[2]

As of the beginning of 2015, Airbnb and other similar sites featured thousands of posts for short-term rentals and home-sharing in San Francisco. Only several hundred owners or leasers, however, had registered as hosts, paying the city-mandated transient occupancy tax (hotel tax). Supporters of this initiative to crack down on current restrictions and impose additional ones said that the violation of city law by hosts using these sites was a huge problem. Opponents of the initiative argued that, despite those who did not register, the industry still provided a lot of revenue to the city.[1][2]

In 2014, Share Better SF collected signatures for an initiative nearly identical to Proposition F, but withdrew it before the deadline, saying it would look to a solution from the board of supervisors first.[1][2]

As of May 2015, Airbnb, the San Francisco branch of which was one of the chief opponents of this initiative, had raised $795 million in financial backing and was worth about $20 billion, after having started up six and a half years earlier.[2]

### City ordinances[edit]

Two ordinances to restrict short-term housing rentals in the city were introduced to the city board of supervisors in 2015. The stricter of the two ordinances, sponsored by Supervisor David Campos, would have allowed 60 days per year of short-term rental business for any given housing unit. The other ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Mark Farrell, was designed to restrict short-term rentals to 120 days per year or leave the restriction at the city's prior 90-day limit. Supervisors considered both sets of regulations on June 9, 2015. They decided, however, to postpone a decision after the board showed strong division over the two measures. The group Share Better SF pledged to put its own initiative on the ballot unless Campos' ordinance was approved, saying it would not be satisfied by the current law or Farrell's more lenient restrictions.[5][6]

On July 14, 2015, the board of supervisors approved the more lenient of the two ordinances, keeping the 90-day limit on unhosted short-term rentals and continuing to allow unlimited hosted short-term rentals. The ordinance also dictated the formation of the Office of Short-Term Rental Administration and Enforcement to oversee the industry.[31]

Proponents of Campos' legislation and this initiative were unsatisfied by the city's bill. Dale Carlson, co-founder of Share Better SF, said, "The Lee-Farrell legislation is an empty shell. Pray tell, how is the city to determine when a host is sleeping in her own bed each night?"[31]

### Televised debate[edit]

KQED News, "KQED Newsroom Segment: Prop F: Airbnb Debate," October 5, 2015

KQED News, "KQED NEWSROOM: Prop F: Airbnb Debate, Sanctuary City," October 2, 2015

## Polls[edit]

David Binder Research conducted two polls concerning Proposition F in July 2015 and September 2015. Those taking the survey were read the Proposition F ballot question and asked if they would vote "yes" or "no." The September poll showed a 15.5 percent increase in opposition to Proposition F, with "no" votes outweighing "yes" votes by 16 points. In July 2015, "yes" votes had a two-point edge on "no" votes. Moreover, after the pro and con arguments that were submitted for inclusion on the ballot were read to respondents during the September 2015 survey, support dropped by five percentage points and opposition increased by two percentage points, leaving "no" votes up by 23 points. The results of the polls are below.[32]

### September 2015[edit]

San Francisco, Proposition F poll

Poll | Yes | No| Undecided| Margin of error| Sample size
David Binder Research, ballot question
September 11-19, 2015 | 31%| 54%| 15%| +/-3.5| 805
David Binder Research, ballot question
September 11-19, 2015 | 36%| 52%| 12%| +/-3.5| 805
AVERAGES|  33.5%|  53%|  13.5%|  +/-3.5|  805
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

### July 2015[edit]

San Francisco, Proposition F poll

Poll | Yes | No| Undecided| Margin of error| Sample size
David Binder Research, ballot question
July 15-19, 2015 | 47%| 45%| 8%| +/-4| 600
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

## Reports and analyses[edit]

Two reports on the effect of short-term rentals on the availability of permanent housing in the city were released in mid-May 2015, one by San Francisco Chief Economist Ted Egan and one by the city’s budget and legislative analyst. The reports did not agree on the conclusiveness of the available data. The chief conclusions of each report are summarized below.[5]

### City's budget and legislative analysis[edit]

The San Francisco Legislative and Budget Analyst released a report that found that between 925 and 1,960 units could have been removed from the city’s housing stock as a result of Airbnb listings.[33]

The large range of estimated effects on the housing market given by the report, which featured a top figure that was more than 100 percent larger than the bottom figure, led some to question its results and methodology.[33]

### Chief Economist Ted Egan[edit]

Egan, however, refused to draw specific conclusions about the actual impact of short-term rentals on the housing market, saying the data he had was inconclusive. He did say that if long-term housing was diverted to full-time short-term use it would have a negative impact on the city's economy. He also said that home owners would have to rent out their units for between 123 and 241 days a year in order to bring in profit equal to that of a permanent rental. He concluded that restricting short-term rentals to anywhere under 123 days per year would motivate owners to find permanent renters for their property if they were able to do so. Egan said that this meant the restrictions in Campos' proposal—60 days per year—Farrell's proposal—90 to 120 days per year—and the citizen initiative—75 days per year—would all be effective in protecting the permanent housing market. Egan endorsed Farrell's ordinance over that of Supervisor Campos, arguing that allowing 120 days per year for short-term rentals would have “a more positive economic impact.”[5][34]

### Ballot simplification digest[edit]

The following summary of the measure was provided by the San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee:

“  |

The Way It Is Now: In an effort to prevent converting residential units to tourist use, San Francisco limits short-term rentals of residential units. A short-term rental lasts less than 30 days.

These limits, set forth in San Francisco’s short-term residential rental law, require that:

* Only permanent residents may offer a residential unit for short-term rental. A permanent resident is someone who has occupied the unit for at least 60 consecutive days. Before offering a unit for short-term rental, permanent residents must register the unit with the City’s Office of Short-Term Residential Rental Administration and Enforcement.
* A permanent resident may not rent a residential unit on a short-term basis for more than 90 days per year if the resident does not live there during the rental period (unhosted rentals). There is no limit on the number of days per year for short-term rentals if the resident lives in the unit during the rental period (hosted rentals).
* Hosting platforms, which provide a means for a person to advertise a residential unit for short-term rental, must notify users of the City’s regulations on short-term rentals.

Short-term rentals are subject to the City’s hotel tax.

It is a misdemeanor for an owner or tenant to unlawfully rent a unit as a short-term rental. In addition, interested parties may sue violators. Interested parties are defined as residents of the building where the residential unit is located, the owner of the unit, people who live within 100 feet of the unit, and certain housing nonprofit organizations. The City may sue any violator at any time, but only the City may sue hosting platforms for violating the shortterm rental law.

The Proposal: Proposition F would limit short-term rentals of a unit to 75 days per year, regardless of whether the rental is hosted or unhosted. Hosting platforms would have to stop listing a unit for short-term rental once that unit has been rented on a short-term basis for more than 75 days in a calendar year. Proposition F would require proof that the unit’s owner authorizes using the unit as a short-term rental. After including a unit on its short-term rental registry, the City would be required to post a notice on the building stating that a unit has been approved for use as a short-term rental.

The City would also be required to mail a notice to the owners, neighbors of the unit and interested neighborhood organizations. Proposition F would require residents who offer short-term rentals to submit quarterly reports on the number of days they live in the unit and the number of days the unit is rented. Proposition F also would:

* prohibit short-term rental of an in-law unit even by a permanent resident of that unit.
* allow interested parties to sue permanent residents and hosting platforms.
* make it a misdemeanor for a hosting platform to unlawfully list a unit as a short-term rental.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to:

* limit short-term rentals of a unit to 75 days per year regardless of whether the rental is hosted or unhosted;
* require owners to provide proof that they authorize the unit as a short-term rental;
* require residents who offer short-term rentals to submit quarterly reports on the number of days they live in the unit and the number of days the unit is rented;
* prohibit short-term rentals of in-law units;
* allow interested parties to sue hosting platforms; and
* make it a misdemeanor for a hosting platform to unlawfully list a unit as a short-term rental.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes to City law.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee[35]

### Controller analysis[edit]

The following estimate of the fiscal impact of this measure on the city's budget was prepared by the city controller and appeared on the ballot:

“  |

Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, the cost to government would increase by $20,000 to $200,000 annually for the cost of required notifications to residents informing them that nearby units have been registered as short-term residential rentals. Registration fees paid by hosts to the City can be adjusted to recover this cost. In addition, the City may lose some future hotel tax revenue, though the exact amount cannot be estimated with the data available.

Current City regulations regarding short-term residential rentals include a cap of 90 days that entire units ("non-hosted" rentals) may be rented in a calendar year. The proposed ordinance would lower this cap to 75 days, and also apply it to shared rooms within a unit ("hosted" rentals). The ordinance would further specify that "in-law" units may not be used for short-term rentals. The ordinance would require posting and notification to neighbors by the City when a unit is registered for short-term rental use. The ordinance also includes new requirements for internet platforms to stop listing units after they reach the 75 day cap and to report quarterly on the rentals advertised on their sites.

As of July 2015 the City budget includes a new Office of Short-Term Rental within the Planning Department, with staff to administer local law in this area. Provided that the requirements of the proposed ordinance could be administered by this office, no new staff costs are estimated. The new registration and notification requirements are estimated to incur mailing costs ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 annually, which can be recovered through user fees.

San Francisco's 14% hotel tax must be paid and collected for short-term residential rentals. Existing data does not allow an exact analysis of the amount of hotel tax the City may lose if the measure is enacted. The City currently budgets for receipt of between $10 million and $15 million annually in hotel taxes paid for short-term rental residential rentals. The city can expect that this amount could be reduced or shifted with a lower cap of allowed rental days and a reduction in the number of housing units eligible for short-term rentals. If at least some rentals are currently used more than 75 days a year, or take place in "in-law" units, the ordinance would reduce those hosts' short-term rental activity and their hotel tax payments to the City. Hotel tax revenues could be further affected if the ordinance generally discourages future use of units for short-term rentals.

Note that this statement does not analyze or estimate the impact of the measure on the private economy. (quote)This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

|  ”

|
|

—San Francisco Controller[36]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

On May 6, 2015, Share Better SF submitted this initiative to the San Francisco elections office, requesting an official title and summary for inclusion on signature petition sheets. On May 18, 2015, the election office provided proponents with the title, summary and petition form. The group needed to collect and submit at least 9,700 valid signatures by early July 2015 in order to qualify its initiative for the election on November 3, 2015. On July 6, 2015, proponents submitted 15,934 signatures to the city elections office. On July 13, 2015, elections officials verified the petition as sufficient and certified the initiative for the ballot.[2][37][38]

## Other elections[edit]

### Mayoral election[edit]

See also: San Francisco, California mayoral election in 2015

Mayor Ed Lee was the incumbent candidate in the city's 2015 mayoral race. Mayor Lee was re-elected on November 3, 2015.[39]

### Board of supervisors[edit]

See also: San Francisco, California board of supervisors election in 2015

The consolidated city-county's District 3 board of supervisors position was up for election on November 3, 2015. Aaron Peskin defeated incumbent Julie Christensen.

## Related measures[edit]

1. City of San Francisco Housing Bond Issue, Proposition A (November 2015) a
2. City of San Francisco Housing Development on Surplus Public Lands, Proposition K (November 2015) a
3. City of San Francisco Mission District Housing Moratorium Initiative, Proposition I (November 2015) d
4. City of San Francisco Mission Rock Development Initiative, Proposition D (November 2015) a
5. City of Tracy Active Adult Residential Allotment Program, Measure K (December 2015) a
6. Town of Mammoth Lakes Voter Approval of Short-Term Rental Zoning Initiative, Measure Z (October 2015) a

## Recent news[edit]

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

City of San Francisco Initiative to Restrict Short-Term Rentals, Proposition F (November 2015) - Google News

## See also[edit]

* Local rent control on the ballot
* Local housing on the ballot
* Hotel taxes in California
* San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures
* November 3, 2015 ballot measures in California
* San Francisco, California municipal elections, 2015

## External links[edit]

|  Suggest a link

|

* San Francisco Elections Office website

### Support[edit]

* Share Better SF website and Facebook page

### Opposition[edit]

* Airbnb public policy blog website
* San Francisco for Everyone, No on F website and Facebook page
* San Franciscans Against Prop F website, Facebook page and Twitter
* Airbnb San Francisco website
* Home Sharers of San Francisco website
* Home Sharers of San Francisco Democratic Club website
* Prop F is worse than you think blog

## Additional reading[edit]

* Tech Crunch, "Airbnb And The Problem Of Data," June 11, 2015
* Star Tribune, "San Francisco revisits regulating home-shares as critics say rentals hurt tight housing market," June 10, 2015
* San Francisco City Office of Economic Analysis, "Amending the Regulation of Short-Term Residential Rentals: Economic Impact Report," accessed July 10, 2015

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Breitbart, "AIRBNB CALLS SF LED UNION BALLOT MEASURE A ‘TROJAN HORSE,’" May 1, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 San Francisco Chronicle, "Airbnb foes mount campaign for S.F. ballot measure," May 1, 2015
3. ↑ Business Insider, "Airbnb has spent more than $8 million fighting a proposed law in San Francisco," September 28, 2015
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 San Francisco Ethics Commission, "Campaign Finance Dashboards - November 3, 2015 Election," accessed October 5, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 San Francisco Chronicle, "New reports differ on impact of Airbnb on S.F.," May 19, 2015
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "Supes delay action on Airbnb rentals but go after sugary drinks," June 9, 2015
7. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Housing is No. 1 issue in city election," September 4, 2015
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Wired, "Prop F Has Failed. But the Battle for SF’s Soul Will Go On," November 4, 2015
9. ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 San Francisco Elections Office, “Ballot Question text,” accessed August 25, 2015
11. ↑ San Francisco Elections Office, "Short-Term Residential Rentals Initiative Summary," accessed August 17, 2015
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Share Better SF, "Home," accessed May 1, 2015
13. ↑ Share Better SF, "Endorsements," accessed September 17, 2015
14. ↑ San Francisco Labor Council, "Endorsements," accessed August 27, 2015
15. ↑ SF Bay, "Residents debate regulations on short-term rentals," May 19, 2015
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 San Francisco Chronicle, "Would SF Prop. F spur Airbnb suits, with neighbor suing neighbor?" August 31, 2015
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 San Francisco Examiner, "San Francisco Examiner’s 2015 Endorsements," October 15, 2015
18. ↑ San Francisco for Everyone, No on F, "Home," accessed August 31, 2015
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 San Franciscans Against Prop F, "Home," accessed September 17, 2015
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Airbnb San Francisco, "Get the Facts," accessed May 4, 2015
21. ↑ Home Sharers of San Francisco, "Home," accessed August 26, 2015
22. ↑ Home Sharers Democratic Club, "Home," accessed August 26, 2015
23. ↑ SF Weekly, "Airbnb Invests in SF Politics," August 26, 2015
24. ↑ San Francisco for Everyone, No on F, "Endorsements," accessed September 17, 2015
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Medium.com, "I Have Read Prop F, and It is Worse Than You Think," September 22, 2015
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 San Francisco Examiner, "Proposed SF home-sharing platform regulations are privacy invasive," May 10, 2015
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: No on Prop. F," October 2, 2015
28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Consumerist, "AirBNB Apologizes For Passive-Aggressive Ads Making City Budget Suggestions," October 22, 2015
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 SF weekly, "Airbnb Apologizes For Passive Aggressive Ads on Muni Shelters (UPDATED)," October 21, 2015
30. ↑ Twitter: Airbnb, "Status 10:23 a.m. - 22 Oct 2015," accessed October 25, 2015
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 CNET, "San Francisco tightens 'Airbnb law' with new amendment," July 14, 2015
32. ↑ David Binder Research, "Poll summary memo," accessed October 9, 2015
33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Civinomics, "San Francisco Takes Aim at Airbnb," May 26, 2015
34. ↑ SF Controller Office, "Amending the Regulation of Short-Term Residential Rentals: Economic Impact Report," accessed August 26, 2015
35. ↑ San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee, "Final digest," accessed August 26, 2015
36. ↑ San Francisco Elections Office, "Controller Analysis of Proposition F," accessed August 26, 2015
37. ↑ Tech Crunch, "It’s On: Airbnb Regulation Set To Hit San Francisco’s Ballot This November," July 6, 2015
38. ↑ San Francisco Elections Office, “Local Ballot Measure Status,” accessed July 15, 2015
39. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `Article`

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

2021|

March 2 • May 4 • June 8 • June 29 • August 31

* * *

2020|

March 3 • April 14 • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3

* * *

2019|

February 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2018|

January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November 6

* * *

2017|

January 10 • February 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • October 17 • November 7

* * *

2016|

January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May 3 • June 7 • November 8

* * *

2015|

January 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • November 17

* * *

2014|

February 4 • February 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May 6 • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4

* * *

2013|

March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2012|

February 7 • March 6 • March 13 • April 6 • April 10 • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6

* * *

2011|

January 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22

* * *

2010|

January 12 • February 2 • February 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May 4 • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July 13 • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2

* * *

2009|

January 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • November 3 • November 17 • December 8 • December 15

* * *

2008|

February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4

* * *

2007|

March 6 • May 7 • November 6

* * *

2006|

March 7 • April 11 • May 2 • June 6 • November 7

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy