Propositions

Finance the acquisition or improvement of real property, including:
- Facilities to house and/or deliver services for persons experiencing mental health challenges, substance use disorder, an/or homelessness
- Parks, open space, and recreation facilities, including green and climate resilient infrastructure
- Streets, curb ramps, street structures and plazas, and related costs necessary or convenient for any of the above

This also permits landlords to pass through 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants, as required by Administrative Code Chapter 37.

It will be paid back over thirty years via property taxes. Note that while this technically creates a new tax, General Obligation Bonds are enacted via a rolling schedule, meaning that this new tax takes effect only as an existing tax on an older bond expires.

Why is it on the ballot?

California Government Code section 53506 and Article XVI of the California Constitution mandated that general obligation bonds of this size be put to a vote.

Why should you vote yes?

This bond funds necessary acquisition and maintenance of vital infrastructure and social services. In addition, bonds are a great way to fund infrastructure: they allow us to build things now and pay for them with inflated dollars later.

This satisfies both #Taxation.Infrastructure and #Taxation.New-Taxes from our voting framework.

Prop B — NO

Department of Sanitation and Streets, Sanitation and Streets Commission, and Public Works Commission

What is it?

Prop B creates a new Department of Sanitation and Streets, which will take over street cleaning and the maintenance of trees which interact with the public right-of-way. It also creates a new Sanitation and Streets Commission which will have oversight of the Department of Sanitation and Streets, but lack administrative power, and the ability to hire, fire, or discipline employees.

Prop B also changes the oversight of the Department of Public Works from the City Administrator to a new Public Works Commission. Like the Sanitation and Streets Commission, this new commission would lack any administrative power.

Finally, Prop B adds a requirement that both DPW and DSS perform an annual performance audit and a cost & waste analysis.

Why is it on the ballot?

This is a City Charter amendment. All charter amendments must be approved by a 50% + 1 majority vote.

Why should you vote no?

This is performative acccountability. It will not solve the very real problems plaguing the Department of Public Works, and in fact will likely make them worse while costing the city an extra $2 to $6 million per year.

On moving DPW oversight from City Administrator to a new commission

Citizen commissions do not produce good outcomes. San Francisco loves to create commissions, but they are ineffective governance tools. Not only do they get easily captured by the wealthy and retired (who can afford to serve and to show up to lobby), they’re also used to reward people in the political machine.

Commissions provide insufficient pressure on the organization they purportedly oversee because they lack any administrative power. They cannot fire bad employees, they cannot actually direct the department to do particular things like cleaning one street instead of another, and since they only meet occasionally they cannot remain adequately informed about the inner workings of the departments.

Moreover, without the City Administrator to provide accountability for the department to the Mayor, the new commission will result in even worse performance of DPW.

On creating a new Department of Sanitation and Streets

DPW is tasked with everything from cleaning streets and sidewalks, to paving streets, to bridge repair. It holds a deep well of experience and expertise across all of its departments. It is already divided into four divisions: operations, engineering, architecture/landscape architecture, and finance/administration.

Rather than create an entirely new department, which would tear multi-talented people away from DPW, a better reform would be to create a new division inside DPW that is focused on street sanitation. This new division would be held accountable by the City Administrator and be able to better focus on keeping streets clean.

This undermines #GoodGovernment.Bureaucracy from our voting framework.

Prop C — YES

Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies

What is it?

This amends the city charter to allow non-citizens to serve on city boards, commissions, and advisory bodies.

Why is it on the ballot?

All amendments to the City Charter are legally required to go to a vote and needs 50% + 1 to pass.

Why should you vote yes?

All people, regardless of citizenship status, should have representation in their local government. The US Census Bureau reports that 34% of San Franciscans are foreign-born. Even if we assume half of those have become citizens, that still leaves about 150,000 people without the ability to influence their city.

One of our core values is that immigrants are the lifeblood of America; an open and multi-cultural society is something to strive for. We should take every opportunity to welcome immigrants into our community and to give them say in how we are all governed.

This satisfies both #GoodGovernment.Promotion and #Values.Immigration from our voting framework.

Prop D — YES

Sheriff Oversight

What is it?

Prop D amends the City Charter to create the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board. This board would report “findings and recommendations” to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors regarding Sheriff’s Department operations.

It also creates the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General, directed by an Inspector General appointed by the Oversight Board. It will be tasked with investigating complaints of non-criminal misconduct by employees and contractors of the Sheriff’s Department, as well as investigating in-custody deaths. It will develop policy recommendations for the department and report its findings quarterly.

The Oversight Board would consist of seven people: four appointed by the Board of Supervisors and three by the Mayor. One of the people appointed by the Board of Supervisors must be “a person with experience in labor representation.”

The staffing levels of the new Office of Inspector General would be mandated at “no fewer than one investigator for every 100 sworn SFSD employees,” and require that no staff of either the SDOB or the OIG “have been employed previously by a law enforcement agency or a labor organization representing law enforcement employees.”

These new departments would not have the authority to hire, fire, or discipline personnel in the Sheriff’s Department. Rather, this ballot prop authorizes the SDOB and OIG only “to advice and make recommendations to the Sheriff and Board of Supervisors.”

Why is it on the ballot?

All amendments to the City Charter are legally required to go to a vote and needs 50% + 1 to pass.

Why should you vote yes?

Policing in America is broken. Police are trained to be too violent and are not held accountable for using extreme violence against people of color.

Police must be held accountable for misconduct, violence, negligence, and all other derelictions of duty. This is a good step in that direction.

Note that these new departments lack any actual enforcement power. So while this is a step in the right direction, it is unlikely to be enough. There is some risk that passing prop D could lead to a feeling of “we tried something” and stymie further reform efforts. But we think that, despite this risk, the reports which this office will publish could result in public pressure campaigns against the Sheriff (for example, a recall election) to force disciplinary action, and provide a valuable signal to the public on police accountability.

This satisfies #Good Government.PoliceAccountability from our voting framework.

Prop E — YES

Police Staffing

What is it?

Prop E is a simple charter amendment to remove the minimum police staffing requirement of 1,971 officers and require a report from the Chief of Police (in odd-numbered years) that summarizes the police department’s current staffing levels and recommending new staffing levels for the next two years.

Why is it on the ballot?

All amendments to the City Charter are legally required to go to a vote and needs 50% + 1 to pass.

San Francisco passed a ballot prop in 1994 that set the minimum staffing level for SFPD to 1,971 full duty sworn officers. This means that we’re bound by what is effectively the city’s constitution to have at least that many officers, regardless of crime or budget levels. Indivisible SF explains more about how we got here.

Why should you vote yes?

This is a no-nonsense reform that lets the city government decide how many police officers are needed, rather than be beholden to the number chosen by voters in 1994.

Whether you support defunding the police, abolishing the police, remaking the police, just prefer a more responsive government, or only care about our budget crisis – this reform is necessary.

This satisfies both #GoodGovernment.Bureaucracy and #GoodGovernment.PoliceAccountability from our voting framework.

Prop F — YES

Business Tax Overhaul

What is it?

There are multiple parts to Prop F.

Lowers the annual business registration fee by approximately 50% for businesses with $1MM or less in San Francisco gross receipts
Increases the small business exemption ceiling for the Gross Receipts Tax to $2MM and increases the business registration fee by a couple hundred dollars on businesses benefiting from this increased exemption
Modifies the gross receipts tax rate (See tax rate table in the legislative digest, p 4)
Fully repeals the Payroll Expense Tax
Implements what Prop C did if Prop C fails in court (see below)
“Other changes” to the City’s business taxes

Fix for Prop C

Prop C was victorious in court, so the fix described below is now moot. However, we are including it for completeness:

Prop F contains a fix for 2018’s Prop C, which introduced a new gross receipts tax to fund housing and various social services. Normally, citizen initiatives for new taxes require 2/3 majority when their proceeds go to fund specific services rather than the general fund.

However, 2018 was weird. There was a CA Supreme Court case, California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, that interpreted an adjacent clause in the state constitution in a way that suggested, but didn’t affirmatively state, that citizen initiatives only need 50% regardless of if they are for the general fund or specific purposes.

The San Francisco City Attorney interpreted the ruling in this way and advised the Department of Elections to treat 2018’s Prop C as a 50% measure.

Predictably, after Prop C passed with less than a 2/3 majority several groups sued.

The taxes were allowed to be levied, but the revenue was sitting in an account and untouchable until this case was decided by the supreme court.

If Prop C had lost in court, then Prop F would have levied a new tax for roughly the same amount as Prop C.

Why is it on the ballot?

All amendments to the City Charter are legally required to go to a vote and needs 50% + 1 to pass.

Additionally, prop 13 mandates that all new taxes be subjected to a vote of the public. Taxes that end up in the General Fund require a 50% + 1 majority.

And finally, because this contains an amendment to 2018’s Prop C, the rules about ballot props mandate that all changes to past ballot props must also go to a vote.

Why should you vote yes?

A ton of back-room political negotation was necessary to reach this compromise bill. In a more functional government, this would have been passed by the Board of Supervisors and everyone would have had a great photo-op. But since California’s laws prevent that, the voters have to give final approval. So, you should vote yes because this vote is merely a legal formality.

On the merits, lowering taxes on small businesses suffering in the pandemic is good, and shifting the payroll tax to a gross receipts tax is probably good.

Prop G — No Endorsement

Youth Voting in Local Elections

What is it?

Lowers the voting age in local elections from 18 to 16, not state and federal. This measure would only apply to youths who are U.S. citizens and is almost identical to San Francisco’s 2016 Measure F which failed to pass with 47.9% of the vote.

Why is it on the ballot?

This is a City Charter amendment that the Board of Supervisors unaminously voted to place on the ballot. All charter amendments must be approved by a 50% vote.

Why aren’t we endorsing?

While we support increasing representation in governance, we could not come to a strong consensus. Instead, we are presenting arguments both in favor and against:

Vote Yes

Why not let 16 year olds vote? They can drive a car, why not drive democracy? Sixteen and seventeen year olds have fully developed cognitive ability and are capable of the logical reasoning 18 and older people do. There’s no coherent reason to keep them from voting other than our cultural norms.

Youths are affected by our democratic decisions, so they should have a voice in shaping them. Sixteen and seventeen year olds can work, pay taxes, and contribute to society in many ways adults can. And many innovations in tech have been created by people under the age of 18.

Moreover, democratic participation among young people has always been low. There’s a chance that an additional two years of experience in local elections could help youths build a habit of civic engagement early in life. Anything which increases participation in elections is likely good for our country.

Vote No

Children under 18 are not adults in the eyes of law or society, so why should they get this privilege of adulthood? We don’t trust children to have the necessary decision-making capacity to choose to smoke or drink, why would we think they have the capacity to consider long-term outcomes of governmental decisions?

It is not clear this would address the underlying reasons for low youth turnout in elections. We may go through the trouble of adapting our systems to accommodate youth voting, only to discover that it was all wasted time and effort. Young people may still choose to sit out democracy.

In additions, there may also be an extra administrative overhead of tracking and sending trimmed ballots for youths only. However, the Controller report estimates that additional costs are marginal. The city has procedures in place when we expanded voting on school board elections to non-citizens in a previous ballot measure.

Summary

In reviewing arguments for both sides, we believe one should not advocate for or against a policy aimed at expanding the electorate based on speculation of how electoral behavior or outcomes would change if the group in question were granted the right to vote.

Vote on Measure G based on whether you believe 16 and 17 year olds should have the right to vote as matter of principle, and not consider who among the newly eligible would exercise the right or vote a certain way.

This satisfies #Representation.NoLobby and undermines #GoodGovernment.Bureaucracy from our voting framework.

Prop H — YES

Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting

What is it?

This reforms a number of anti-business laws:

Streamlines city review of “principally-permitted” uses in Neighborhood Commercial Transit districts
Legalizes the cafe/workspace business model in Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT) districts
Make more uses principally permitted in NCT districts
Abolish mandatory notices to neighbors for principally permitted, limited commercial, and limited corner commercial uses in NC and NCT districts
Expands what counts as a “bona fide eating place”
Permits temporary, or “pop-up,” activities in vacant storefronts
Permits outdoor activity areas on the ground floor
Allows use of parklets for restaurant service (like we’re doing now due to COVID)

Generally, this streamlines the process of opening a business, makes it easier to modify a business, and expands what is allowed in certain neighborhoods.

Why is it on the ballot?

Mayor Breed placed this on the ballot because the Board of Supervisors refused to act.

Why should you vote yes?

COVID has destroyed small businesses. This ballot prop will make it easier for businesses to survive the rest of the pandemic, and for new ones to open. An editorial by small business advocates Sharky Laguana, Laurie Thomas, and local policy analyst Robert Fruchtman titled How can we rebuild our economy, if we make it this hard to sell ice cream? and SF Chronicle’s article titled Bid to open S.F. ice cream shop turns into a bitter saga because of byzantine small business rule details the arduous and expensive process of opening a new business in SF.

Prop H removes lot of red tape that makes San Francisco the worst place in America for small businesses and permits more flexible use of commercial spaces. The process of obtaining a permit takes months or even years, Prop H would expedite review process to 30 or less days in neighborhood commercial districts. The current rules define zoned activities in neighborhood district as 1) principally permitted, 2) conditional use by exception, 3) not allowed. Why can’t the same space be a coffee shop during the day and outdoor retail space on weekends? Why force struggling small businesses to jump through hurdles? Flexible usage allows for efficient utilization of commercial spaces. Businesses that would benefit from having a brick-and-mortar presence but do not have resources to commit to an expensive lease as the sole, primary occupant of a space can share space and distribute costs.

Opponents say that amending the planning code should be done through the regular legislative process, not through ballot initiative. Complex planning and zoning rules have made it prohibitive to start a business prior to COVID. For years, our Board of Supervisors has failed to act to reform inordinately burdensome regulation that is hostile to enterpreneurs while providing no benefit to public safety. With COVID threatening small business livelihoods, we must act swiftly as voters to confirm these long overdue reforms.

This satisfies #GoodGovernment.Bureaucracy from our voting framework.

Prop I — NO

Real Estate Transfer Tax

What is it?

San Francisco levies a tax on all real estate sales, the rates vary by property values. Prop I would double the rates for all properties valued at $10MM and up:

Sale price	Current tax rate	New tax rate
<$250k	0.5%	0.5%
250k-1MM	0.68%	0.68%
1MM-5MM	0.75%	0.75%
5MM-10MM	2.25%	2.25%
10MM-25MM	2.75%	5.5%
25MM+	3%	6%

The City Controller estimates that under economic conditions similar to the 2008-2020 time frame, this tax would generate between $13MM and $346MM per year, for an average of $196MM. However, this assumes that the tax does not impact economic activity.

The City Economist report states that this tax will have a cooling effect on all development. It will depress some property values (because the new tax rate gets priced in), and make projects like 12+ unit apartment buildings infeasible at the margin.

Why is it on the ballot?

Prop 13 mandates that all new taxes be subjected to a vote of the public. Taxes that end up in the General Fund require a 50% + 1 majority.

Supervisor Dean Preston, along with Supervisors Mar, Haney, Ronen, and Walton, put it on the ballot. This is a reelection year for Preston and Ronen.

Why should you vote no?

This tax is extremely poorly designed. Unlike almost every tax in the world, it is not a marginal tax, so each new bracket will tax the entire value; a property valued at $10,000,000 will pay twice as much total tax as one valued at $9,999,999. And while it is marketed as a tax on luxury homes, the majority of the buildings with a value over $10 million are new apartment and office buildings, making it essentially a tax on apartments and offices that conveniently excludes single-family mansions. Considering that most new apartment and office buildings are sold from the developer to the property manager before being rented out, this essentially makes Prop I a drastic tax on new office and dense housing construction, two things we are in desperately short supply of.

Since this law contains no grandfathering, projects which were already under way at the edge of feasibility (AKA on-the-margin) will suddenly become impossible. This effect on marginal production is permanent and will result in an immediate decrease in housing production of 400-500 units per year. To put this in perspective, we need to build at least 5,000 homes per year just to make rents increase more slowly and we haven’t even been able to achieve that very low number for the past several decades.

According to the City Economist’s report:

The higher tax can have the effect of making some redevelopment plans less feasible, leading to more constrained real estate markets, higher commercial rents, and higher housing prices
Ted Egan, Ph.D, Chief Economist for San Francisco

To hit the new tax threshold of $10MM, one only needs to build a 12-unit building, and the highest threshold is hit at only 28 units. Not only will this kill new market rate housing, the resulting drop in fees on those units will further starve the Affordable Housing Trust Fund which the city uses to fund development of subsidized Affordable housing.

All 100% Affordable buildings for people with low incomes must be at least 50 units to qualify for all of the necessary tax credits to make financing the project possible, so this will also raise the price of subsidized housing, which already clocks in at over $650,000 per subsidized unit. Subsidized affordable properties are exempted until 2024, so this effect won’t be seen immediately.

Finally, the City Economist also found that this tax will have a net-negative impact on the city’s economy:

Based on these projected changes to the local economy, the REMI model forecasts that the net impact on the city’s economy would be negative.
The negative impact is almost entirely associated with the development that would be made infeasible by the Transfer Tax increase. Limitations to the growth of the city’s housing supply will tend to inflate housing prices, while limitations to the growth of commercial real estate will limit job growth, and put downward pressure on wages.
As a result, the real incomes of San Francisco households would decline, on average, because of the lower incomes and higher housing prices. San Francisco would become less attractive economically as a place to live. Consequently, the city’s population would decline, with both fewer migrants moving in, and more residents moving out.
Ted Egan, Ph.D, Chief Economist for San Francisco

We cannot afford to raise the cost of housing production while simultaneously depressing wages as we enter a recession. We already have a statewide shortage of 3.5 million homes and the highest housing prices in the country; this new tax will make it harder to build our way out.

This runs contrary to #Taxation.NewTaxes from our voting framework, but it is so poorly designed and has such negative consequences that we cannot endorse it.

Prop J — YES

Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District

What is it?

Like Prop F, this contains a fix for 2018’s Prop G, which introduced a new parcel tax of $298 per parcel to fund San Francisco Unified School District salaries, staffing, professional development, technology, charter school, and oversight of funding.

2018’s Prop G passed with 61% of the vote. The City Attorney declared that it only needed 50% of the vote, but state law says it needs 2/3, so it was then sued.

If Prop J passes, it will sunset 2018’s Prop G and institute a new (slightly lower) tax, with revenues directed to the general fund rather than set aside for SFUSD.

Why is it on the ballot?

Prop 13 mandates that all new taxes be subjected to a vote of the public. Taxes that end up in the General Fund require a 50% + 1 majority.

Why should you vote yes?

2018’s Prop G clearly had support of the public, and Prop J will end the legal limbo that its funds are sitting in if it passes.

On the merits, Prop J’s tax is much better than 2018’s Prop G. That’s because Prop J directs the revenue it raises into the general fund, rather than locking it away in a set-aside. We believe all taxes should go toward the general fund so that our legislature can have discretion about when and where to spend money. Set-asides lock the city into obligations that they may not be able to pay for, or which are a bad use of money in a recession.

This satisfies both #Taxation.NewTaxes and #Taxation.LiberateSetAsides from our voting framework.

Prop K — YES

Affordable Housing Authorization

What is it?

This authorizes the construction of up to 10,000 residential housing units of “low rent housing projects” for the purpose of “providing affordable rental housing.”

It does not fund their development, acquire the necessary land rights, or grant building permits. It merely gives the city permission to pursue their development.

Why is it on the ballot?

Article 34 of the California State Constitution bans the construction of municipally owned housing unless explicitly authorized by a public vote.

Why should you vote yes?

It is presumably not news to anyone reading this guide that San Francisco has a massive homelessness and housing crisis. Over 8,000 people in the city are experiencing homelessness, making this crisis truly the defining policy issue for the city. Meanwhile, the city is drastically under-building low-income housing, all but guaranteeing that more economically vulnerable people will be forced into homelessness or displaced from San Francisco altogether. By giving the city authorization to build 10,000 low income housing units, Prop K can serve as one step towards the sort of bold, transformative action needed to begin undoing these crises.

That said, it is important to temper expectations. The Article 34 authorization that Prop K is just one step towards building new affordable housing. Zoning, funding, and dealing with local NIMBYs will all pose massive barriers towards actually acting on those 10,000 units. And it is far from clear that San Francisco will actually pursue the municipally owned housing that Prop K enables. Publicly owned and managed housing in San Francisco has a dismal history of disinvestment and mismanagement, and over the past decade, the city has begun systematically transferring all of its public housing to non-profits. Low income housing that is built, owned, and run by non-profits are not subject to Article 34’s restrictions and thus would not need Prop K’s approvals to be pursued. If the city continues this course of having non-profits build and run its affordable housing, Prop K may end up being little more than performative progressivism.

However, it remains possible the city will try at some point to build and run public housing through the municipal government again. It is important that we not pre-emptively deprive ourselves of any tools with which we might make a dent in our housing and homelessness crises. And while we’re not fond of purely symbolic measures, there is value in taking a stand against a law with such segregationist history and intent as Article 34. Thus, we urge you to vote yes on Prop K, to take a stand against California’s exclusionary history and hopefully build some affordable housing along the way.

This satisfies #Values.SafetyNets from our framework.

Prop L — NO

Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees' Pay

What is it?

This would institute new gross receipts taxes on companies that pay their highest-paid executive at least 100x what their median SF-based employee is paid.

The rates are:

For businesses engaged in any business other than administrative office

Pay ratio	Tax rate
100:1	0.1%
200:1	0.2%
300:1	0.3%
400:1	0.4%
500:1	0.5%
600:1 or more	0.6%

For businesses engaged in business as administrative office

Pay ratio	Tax rate
100:1	0.4%
200:1	0.8%
300:1	1.2%
400:1	1.6%
500:1	2.0%
600:1 or more	2.4%

The City Controller’s Office predicts this will raise between $60MM and $140MM, but also notes that the “narrow base of expected payers, annual fluctuations in the value and form of executive compensation, and potential relocation risk” as reasons that contribute to a highly unstable tax.

Why is it on the ballot?

Prop 13 mandates that all new taxes be subjected to a vote of the public. Taxes that end up in the General Fund require a 50% + 1 majority.

It was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors (minus Catherine Stefani).

Why should you vote no?

This is a performative culture war tax that is poorly designed and will hurt bootstrapping startups. The Board of Supervisors picked these numbers arbitrarily. Why did they pick these ratios? Why did they pick these tax rates? The answer is that they just… made them up. The picked numbers that sounded good, rather than numbers based in economic reality. Sadly, this is an all-too-common occurrence in San Francisco.

San Francisco’s elected officials have long shown contempt toward the tech industry, despite the industry funding the rapid expansion in city budgets. They continually demonize the tech industry and blame it for the city’s ills. The reality, however, is that the blame for the failure of government lies at the feet of the people in government.

NOTE: Our first version of our argument against Prop L may have contained a factual error. We have taken down part of the argument while we double check our facts.

Measure RR — YES

Caltrain Sales Tax

What is it?

A 1/8-cent sales tax to provide dedicated funding for Caltrain’s operations. It would apply to Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties and needs a 2/3 majority across the three counties to pass. It is expected to raise $108 million per year for Caltrain.

Why is it on the ballot?

Prop 13 mandates that all new taxes be subjected to a vote of the public. Taxes that are set-aside for a particular use require a 2/3 majority. The specific format of the tax was dictated by Senate Bill 797, which allowed the imposition of this tax across county lines.

Why should you vote yes?

Caltrain is one of the few public transportation agencies without a dedicated source of funding, rendering it very vulnerable to revenue declines like those caused by the covid-19 ridership decline. Without the revenue provided by this tax, Caltrain may be forced to shut down, just as ridership would have begun to return to normal next year, assuming a vaccine becomes available.

Such a shutdown would be disastrous, potentially requiring 2.5 years before service could resume again. With Caltrain approaching completion of its electrification plans that would greatly boost service and ridership, that would be an unmitigated catastrophe. A Caltrain shutdown would dump four freeway lanes worth of cars back on the roads, worsen climate change, and make commuting harder for thousands of Bay Area residents, including many tech workers. While sales taxes are generally regressive and thus not an ideal way to raise revenues, the actual material impact of this tax is extremely mild, at $1.25 of taxes for every $1000 sold. A tax that low is unlikely to cause drastic hardship to anyone and seems like a very low price to pay to keep our essential public transit functioning.

For more information, please check out rescuecaltrain.org. This proposition satisfies #Taxation.Infrastructure from our voting framework.