THE OFFICIAL NO COMMITTEE
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is Prop B on the San Francisco November 2026 ballot?
November 3, 2026 Prop B (File No. 260535) is a City Charter amendment to authorize a Municipal Finance Corporation and, later, a San Francisco public bank.
It is not the June 2026 San Francisco Prop B on term limits. A Yes vote does not fund the bank, open branches, or let residents open checking accounts.
The official No committee — San Franciscans for Fiscal Responsibility — asks voters to vote No.
2. When do San Francisco voters vote on the public bank Prop B?
Election day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026, in the City and County of San Francisco. A simple majority decides the measure.
The Board of Supervisors placed it on the ballot on a 9–2 vote in July 2026. Supervisors Alan Wong and Stephen Sherrill voted no.
3. Is this the same as June 2026 Prop B?
No. San Francisco reused the letter B. June 2026 Prop B was about term limits. November 2026 Prop B is the public bank / Municipal Finance Corporation charter amendment.
If a search result says “Prop B San Francisco” without a month, check which election it means. This site is only about the November public-bank measure.
4. What does Proposition B actually do?
It amends the City Charter to authorize a Municipal Finance Corporation now and a public bank later. That is the entire legal effect.
It does not create the bank on election night. It does not fund it. It does not give residents checking accounts. It writes the mission, principles, and governance of both entities into the Charter, so changing them later requires another citywide vote — not ordinary legislation.
The ballot question is: “Shall the City amend the Charter to authorize the City to establish a municipal finance corporation and a public bank?”
A No vote leaves the City free to expand existing housing and small-business lending programs without locking an unfunded bank into the Charter.
5. How much would this cost?
The City Controller, citing the City’s own 2023 Reinvestment Working Group plan, estimates $310 million to $460 million over eight years if the City proceeds with the corporation and then the bank. Supporters themselves have talked about roughly $325 million in startup capital before a single loan is issued.
That money has to come from somewhere: new taxes, diverted general-fund dollars, or both. Loan losses would fall on the City, not private shareholders.
San Francisco is already closing a roughly $640 million deficit and cutting hundreds of City Hall positions. This is the wrong year to authorize a new financial institution that the Controller says would cost hundreds of millions.
6. Supporters say Prop B “costs nothing” because it has no funding attached. Is that true?
That is the most important talking point to reject.
Prop B has no funding on purpose. The actual funding vehicle was a gross-receipts tax on financial-sector businesses, introduced in February 2026 and withdrawn in March for lack of support. Sponsors have said out loud that more legislation will be needed to capitalize the bank.
So the sequence is: approve the bank in November, fight the tax later. Once the Charter mandate exists, the pressure to fund it becomes permanent. “No money now” is not low-risk. It is a blank check.
7. Will I be able to open an account at this bank?
No. Coalition spokespeople have said the institution is not designed for consumer checking or everyday banking. It would start as a lending corporation and, years later, might hold institutional deposits.
If you are voting Yes because you want a neighborhood bank that serves you the way a credit union does, Prop B is not that. It is an unfunded lending authority written into the Charter.
8. Didn’t Los Angeles already try this?
Yes — and voters rejected it.
Los Angeles Measure B (2018) was a nearly identical public-bank charter amendment, placed on the ballot unanimously by the City Council with major political endorsements. After voters heard the opposition case, it lost 55.85% No to 44.15% Yes. The Yes campaign there raised only about $45,000.
Concept polls always look strong. Ballot language plus a price tag is what voters actually decide. San Francisco should not ignore the only large-city test of this idea.
9. What about the Bank of North Dakota? Doesn’t that prove public banks work?
North Dakota’s bank is a 100-year-old state institution in an energy-revenue state. It is not a first-of-its-kind city bank carved into a municipal charter during a deficit.
No American city has successfully done what Prop B contemplates. First-of-its-kind financial risk belongs in a fully funded business plan with an exit ramp — not in the City Charter, where reversing course requires another election.
10. Who would control it?
Each oversight commission has nine seats. The Board of Supervisors appoints four — the plurality. The Mayor appoints two. The Treasurer-Tax Collector, Controller, and City Attorney appoint one each.
Current and recent politicians are barred from serving. Their staffers, donors, and political appointees are not. The measure also bans investments in categories such as “predatory lending,” fossil fuels, weapons, and labor-law violators — without defining those terms. The commissions decide what counts.
That is more political control, not less.
11. I support affordable housing and small business. Why would I vote No?
Because Prop B funds neither.
San Francisco already runs housing funds, small-business loan programs, and the Treasurer’s Office lending tools. Prop C on this same ballot would expand the Housing Trust Fund. Mayor Lurie’s position is the right one: creating a new institution instead of putting scarce dollars directly into housing and small businesses is irresponsible.
A bank does not make construction cheaper. It does not erase default risk. If the City wants more lending, it can do that through programs voters can fund, oversee, and shut down without amending the Charter.
12. Isn’t this just “banks vs. the people”?
No. Lead with the record, not the industry.
Two sitting supervisors — Alan Wong and Stephen Sherrill — voted against placing this on the ballot. Wong had previously been open to public banking and flipped after looking at City Hall’s track record on risk and delivery. GrowSF is skeptical. The Chronicle editorial board recommends No. The Mayor does not support it.
The Yes side’s own coalition commissioned the 67% “concept” poll, and a lead sponsor both co-founded that coalition and authored the withdrawn tax. Voters are allowed to notice that concentration of roles.
If the idea were ready, it would come with a funding plan, a consumer product, and a business case that survives contact with the Controller’s numbers. It does not.
13. What happens if Prop B fails?
Nothing breaks. Existing housing and small-business programs keep operating. The Board can still legislate lending tools, seek a state charter later, or return with a complete proposal: capital source, loss reserves, consumer rules, and an honest cost.
What failure prevents is the bad sequence: lock the structure into the Charter first, invent the money later, and dare the next Board to unwind it.
State authorization for local public banks sunsets in 2028. That is the Yes side’s urgency argument. It is also the reason not to rush a half-built idea into the Charter. If they need another vote of the people to change it, they should have to earn that vote with a real plan.
Vote No on Proposition B.
Prop B San Francisco · What is Prop B? · San Francisco public bank