This voter guide focuses on items that would impact housing, homelessness, the justice system, and public space.
This quick and dirty voter guide provides information about the propositions and ballot measures in the state and county, as well as the city you live in. We focused on issues that will most impact the unhoused community. If you are looking for more information about each and every item on the ballot—including candidates who are running for office—we recommend KQED’s online guide: www.kqed.org/voterguide/alameda
California
Prop 2: If passed, Prop 2 would authorize the state to borrow $8.5 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges for construction and modernization.
Prop 3: If passed, Prop 3 would reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry. This constitutional amendment would remove outdated language from Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, that characterizes marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Prop 4: If passed, Prop 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change, including $3.8 billion for drinking water and groundwater programs, $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest programs, and $1.2 billion for sea level rise. In part, the money would offset some budget cuts.
Prop 5: If passed, Prop 5 would make it easier for local governments to borrow money for affordable housing and some other public infrastructure projects by lowering the voter approval requirement from two-thirds to 55%.
Prop 6: If passed, Prop 6 would end indentured servitude in state prisons, considered one of the last remnants of slavery. The California Black Legislative Caucus included the proposal in its reparations agenda.
Prop 32: If passed, Prop 32 would raise the state minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026 for all employers. In 2027 and thereafter, minimum wage increases would be adjusted annually based on increases to the cost of living. The proposition would not change any local or industry-specific minimum wages, such as fast food workers making $20 per hour.
Prop 33: If passed, Prop 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, allowing local governments to expand rent controls. The proposition itself does not make any changes to existing local rent control laws—cities and counties would have to take separate actions to change their local laws. It also prevents the state from taking future actions to limit local rent control.
Prop 34: If passed, Prop 34 would require some providers to spend 98% of net revenue on direct patient care or risk losing their licenses or tax-exempt status. Sponsored by the trade group for California’s landlords, this measure is squarely aimed at knee-capping the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has been active in funding state and local housing policies such as Prop 33.
Prop 35: If passed, Prop 35 would establish a permanent tax on managed health care plans to raise more money for Medi-Cal. The proposition would also block lawmakers from redirecting the tax revenue for other state programs. The tax is currently set to expire in 2026.
Prop 36: If passed, Prop 36 would increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking, including longer prison sentences and mandatory drug treatment. The proposition would partly roll back Proposition 47, approved by voters in 2014, which turned some felonies into misdemeanors.
Alameda County
Alameda County voters will get to weigh in on whether or not to recall District Attorney Pamela Price. Voting yes supports recalling Price from the District Attorney’s seat. Voting no supports keeping her in office. Supporters of the multimillion dollar recall campaign blame Price’s policies, such as limiting sentencing enhancements, for a steep rise in crime in the county last year. Opponents say it’s unfair to blame Price for a rise in crime that began during the pandemic, and note the effort is funded primarily by a small group of wealthy individuals.
City of Oakland
Mayoral recall: It’s been over 100 years since the last recall election against a mayor in Oakland, but this year voters will be asked if they wish to recall Mayor Sheng Thao. Voting yes supports the recall. Voting no supports keeping her in office.
Supporters of the Recall Thao campaign say that crime has risen under her administration, and blame her for the city’s massive budget deficit after her administration missed an important grant deadline last year. Opponents say that Oakland was already dealing with these challenges before Thao took office, and emphasize the fact that the recall is largely being paid for by wealthy donors who don’t live in Oakland and did not elected Thao in 2022.
Measure NN: If passed, Measure NN would extend a parking tax and parcel tax (a form of property tax) to raise money for police, fire, and violence prevention among other “public safety services.” A yes vote supports the new taxes. A no vote does not. Supporters say: “We face a public safety crisis in Oakland—our community must come together to improve 911 response times and reduce crime and gun violence,” and describe the initiative as a “smart-on-crime” measure crafted by a coalition of small businesses, doctors, public health experts, firefighters and first responders. Opponents say: “Vote No on Oakland’s decades-long plan to defund the police and reject this new parcel tax that decreases police funding, decreases accountability, and will result in even more crime.”
City of Berkeley
Measure W: This measure would raise money to rehouse unhoused people by restructuring a property transfer tax for homes valued at $1.6 million or higher. A yes vote supports the new tax. A no vote opposes it. Supporters, such as Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, note that the city must spend roughly $75 million annually to meet its goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness by 75%. Opponents, like Marcus Crawley—president of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association—say voters should be cautious. Under state law, cities cannot divert a transfer tax to a special program, meaning all revenues from this tax would be deposited into the city’s general fund and could be used for any legitimate city expense.
Measure X: If passed, would raise funds for the Berkeley Public Library and its anticipated repairs by creating a special parcel tax. A yes vote supports the new tax. A no vote does not. Supporters say that without the funds from Measure X, Berkeley libraries will be forced to cut hours, reduce staff, shrink collections, delay much-needed upgrades and repairs, and cut youth and other programs that are highly valued by our community. They also note that the last time Berkeley libraries won funding from voters was in the 1980s. Street Spirit could find no opposing argument to Measure X.
Measure Y: This measure would increase the special parcel tax that funds Berkeley parks, trees, and landscaping. A yes vote supports the tax increase. A no vote opposes it. Supporters of Measure Y say it is important for fire and vegetation management. Street Spirit could find no opposing argument to Measure Y.
Measure BB: This measure would set aside funds for a housing retention program, allow tenants representing at least 50% of the occupied rental units in a building to form an association, and limit the maximum annual rent increase to 5% (currently 7%). Supporters say that Measure BB creates a new right to organize tenant associations and requires property owners to work in good faith with tenants. Opponents say that it violates a homeowners’ ability to decide when to start and stop renting their home and severely limits their ability to evict tenants for non-payment of rent or lease violations.
Measure CC: This measure would set aside existing revenue to create a fund for rent payments to property owners on behalf of struggling tenants, allow tenants representing two-thirds of occupied units to form an association, and remove certain powers from the Rent Board. (If both BB and CC pass, the one with the higher vote count will prevail). Supporters say that Berkeley urgently needs new housing—people are becoming homeless faster than we can build the housing needed to shelter them. They describe preventing tenants from being displaced as a critical stopgap measure for keeping people off the streets, and say that Berkeley needs a permanent rent relief fund for tenants in need. Opponents say that “Berkeley’s largest landlords spent tens of thousands of dollars to qualify Measure CC, promoting it as a solution to homelessness. However, this measure could increase housing insecurity for hundreds of households throughout our city. Measure CC also creates a redundant rent relief program, placing millions of taxpayer dollars directly into the pockets of landlords, with no criteria or means testing.”
Measure EE: This measure would create a special parcel tax of 13 cents per square foot on all property to fund repairs on street surfaces, sidewalks, and paths. Supporters say Measure EE would get Berkeley streets, sidewalks, and paths repaired so that everyone can walk, bike, and drive safely, and note that the measure exempts low-income homeowners and protects small businesses. Opponents say it does not guarantee safety improvements for kids or pedestrians, as it does not fund Safe Routes to Schools projects for children walking or biking to school, and won’t fund street lighting.
Measure FF: If passed, would create a special parcel tax of 17 cents per square foot on residential property and 25 cents per square foot on commercial property to fund street and sidewalk repair—as well as new safety infrastructure such as traffic-calming devices and street redesigns. (If both EE and FF pass, the one with the higher vote count will prevail.) Supporters say that Berkeley streets are in desperate need of repair, and Measure FF will solve the problem. Opponents say that while Measure FF claims to allocate 30% of funds to “safety improvements,” it is too broad to actually be effective, and would eliminate parking and hurt small businesses, while increasing congestion and impeding emergency responders.
Street Spirit is based in Berkeley, CA and run by Alastair Boone, Bradley Penner, and Kevin Sample. We are fiscally sponsored by Independent Arts & Media, a 501(c)(3) organization.