- By Troy Wolverton | Examiner staff writer |
- Oct 8, 2024 Updated 20 hrs ago (SFExaminer.com)
A grassroots-sponsored, widely endorsed measure to shore up funding for Muni has drawn one of the best-funded opposition campaigns of any San Francisco proposition this election cycle.
Given that Proposition L would tax ride-hailing giants Uber, Lyft and Waymo to raise funds for the transit agency, that might not be much of a surprise. Although the tax is relatively small — at its highest rate, it would be equivalent to 45 cents on a $10 ride — Uber and Lyft are spending big money to defeat it.
Lyft argues the proposition would hurt drivers and increase costs for its riders — particularly low-income ones — without closing Muni’s looming budget deficit, spokesman C.J. Macklin said in an emailed statement.
Prop. L would “make it harder for people to live and work in the Bay Area,” Macklin said. “It’s the wrong move for San Francisco.”
Uber spokesman Zahid Arab directed inquiries about the company’s stance on the measure to the No on Prop L campaign. Waymo representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Although the opposition campaign didn’t ramp up until after Prop. L qualified for the ballot, supporters of the measure weren’t surprised by the flood of money coming in to thwart their effort, said Cyrus Hall, the Yes on L campaign manager. Hall said he also wouldn’t be surprised if Uber and Lyft used their ride-hailing apps to urge their San Francisco customers to vote against Prop. L. That’s a tactic the companies used to promote state Proposition 22, which barred California from treating Uber and Lyft drivers as employees of those companies, in 2020.
“They have lots of tools at their disposal that we don’t have as a campaign, just because they’ve got the apps, they’ve got the money,” Hall said.
But the yes campaign can counter that with the big team of volunteers it has signed up, who are out talking to voters nearly daily about the measure, he said.
“Really, it’s those conversations that are going to win Prop. L the election,” Hall said.
Prop. L would put an additional tax on the money Uber, Lyft and Waymo generate in The City. Unlike some of San Francisco’s other business taxes, the levy wouldn’t depend on how many employees those companies have in The City; San Francisco would tax them the same amount whether they’re based here or not.
Also, unlike the tax San Francisco voters approved with Proposition D in 2019, Prop. L’s levy would be assessed on the aggregate amount of revenue the companies generate in The City, not on individual rides. It would be up to Uber, Lyft and Waymo whether to pass the tax along to riders or drivers.
Prop. L would bring in about $25 million a year. Supporters acknowledge it wouldn’t solve Muni’s funding woes, not with the agency facing a budget deficit that could reach as large as $322 million in its 2026-2027 fiscal year, according to a recent estimate from its finance chief. But they say the measure is a way to build support for a bigger funding measure that would assist multiple transit agencies in the region by showing that San Francisco is doing its part to address Muni’s problems.
Uber and Lyft are spending up to defeat that effort.
As of the beginning of this month, the No on Prop L committee had raised nearly $913,000, according to filings it made with the San Francisco Ethics Commission. Of that, Uber contributed about $30,500 directly and another $750,000 through a campaign committee. Lyft contributed about $128,000. The remaining $4,000 came from SF Forward, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce’s political-action committee.
The amount the opposition campaign has raised — which includes about $53,000 in non-monetary contributions — is more than three times that of the Yes on L campaign. The tally also represents the second-highest amount raised by an opposition campaign to a local measure on the November ballot. Only the effort to simultaneously promote Proposition D’s commission-reform effort and defeat rival Proposition E has raised more funds.
So far, No on Prop L has spent about $216,000, not including the value of the services provided to the campaign for free, according to its finance filings. Of those expenditures, about $30,000 has gone to political consulting firm BMWL, which is running the campaign. Another $55,000 has been spent on online ads, and more than $57,000 on postage.
Despite those expenses, the opposition campaign has a war chest left for the last few weeks until the election. As of Sept. 21, it still had nearly $709,000 on hand, although it had accrued some $105,000 in outstanding expenses.
John Whitehurst, a consultant with BMWL who is heading up the No on Prop L campaign, said the group plans to focus its messaging effort on digital and direct-mail marketing. Its message will also be on some voting slate cards put out by San Francisco political groups.
The campaign has already spent $5,000 to be on the United Democratic Club’s slate mailer and $2,500 to be on one from the San Francisco Eastern Neighborhoods Democratic Club, according to its filings. It also expects to be on the slates put out by GrowSF, TogetherSF Action, the Ed Lee Democratic Club and the Raoul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club, Whitehurst said.
“We’re spending most of that money [that the campaign has raised] communicating directly with voters,” he said. “We will be communicating right to the end, right up to election day.”
The No on Prop L campaign doesn’t plan to buy broadcast ads, Whitehurst said. And despite Hall’s worry, Uber and Lyft don’t plan to use their apps to promote the anti-L effort, he said.
Instead, Whitehurst is going to focus his digital marketing on ads on Meta’s services, such as Facebook and Instagram, on various websites and on online news outlets, he said.
“Wherever voters are on the web is where they’ll see our ads,” Whitehurst said.
The No on Prop L campaign is pushing the message that L will drive up costs without fixing Muni’s problems. It’s also arguing that the proposition doesn’t include any kind of accountability provisions to ensure the money it would raise is spent as intended.
The funding Prop. L would provide is enough to save 10 bus lines and would help Muni avert bigger cuts in coming years, Hall said. Additionally, the measure specifies how its funding would be spent — on continuing or improving service, or discounted fares — and SFMTA already has both a board and a citizens’ advisory council that oversee its spending, he said.
The anti-L effort could be boosted by another ballot measure — Proposition M, which would streamline San Francisco’s business taxes by essentially removing several provisions similar to that proposed by Prop. L that voters have added on over the years. Some proponents of Prop. M see Prop. L as counter to the reform effort and oppose it on those grounds.
Additionally, there’s a provision within Prop. M that will make it harder for Prop. L to win. That condition mandates that Prop. L will need not only a majority, but will also have to attract more votes than Prop. M to take effect.
But Whitehurst said he’s not counting on that provision or support from Prop. M backers to win.
“The job of the No on L campaign is to … convince voters to vote no on L,” he said. “Of course, it’s great if the Yes on M campaign has a robust effort, but … those are two different efforts.”
Including the value of the non-monetary contributions that have been made to the campaign, the No on Prop L effort has spent about $269,000. That’s just $20,000 less than the Yes on L campaign has raised.
Unlike the opposition campaign, most of the contributions to Yes on L have come in the form of relatively small donations ranging from $100 to $2,000. In addition to those, the campaign raised $30,000 from Laura Yakovenko, $40,000 from Jessica Summer Jenkins, about $28,000 from Kat Siegal — one of Prop. L’s cosponsors — and about $29,000 from Hall.
As of Sept. 21, the Yes on L campaign had just $49,000 in cash left. But the campaign has other things in its favor. For one, it has garnered widespread support.
Mayor London Breed and three of her rivals in the mayoral race — Daniel Lurie and supervisors Aaron Peskin and Ahsha Safai — have endorsed the measure, as have eight of the nine other city supervisors, House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and state Sen. Scott Wiener. It also won the backing of the local Democratic Party and numerous other groups, including the San Francisco League of Women Voters, San Francisco YIMBY and the Rose Pak Democratic Club.
Yes on L also has the volunteers who are talking to voters, Hall said, and public sentiment on its side.
“Muni is very well loved in San Francisco,” Hall said. “It’s very popular, and people want to make sure it thrives.”
If you have a tip about tech, startups or the venture industry, contact Troy Wolverton at twolverton@sfexaminer.com or via text or Signal at 415.515.5594.
the volunteers who are talking to voters, Hall said, and public sentiment on its side.
“Muni is very well loved in San Francisco,” Hall said. “It’s very popular, and people want to make sure it thrives.”
If you have a tip about tech, startups or the venture industry, contact Troy Wolverton at twolverton@sfexaminer.com or via text or Signal at 415.515.5594.
