San Francisco’s proposition B (November 2014) establishes a minimum amount of funding the city must provide from the General Fund to support Muni service.
75% of the funding is dedicated solely to implement and support Muni service improvements, increase capacity, maintain vehicles, and keep infrastructure in a state of good repair. 25% is to be used for capitol projects that will improve safety for all road users.
Today the San Francisco Chronicle published opposing editorials on the matter. One in support of Prop B:
Proposition B is a commonsense measure to improve our transportation system by tying funding to population growth. As more people move to San Francisco, Prop. B will give Muni more money to keep up, by adjusting the formula that pays for Muni service.
Since 2003, San Francisco has grown by 85,000 people and Muni has become overcrowded and unreliable. Buses and trains break down too often and don’t run frequently enough.
Another editorial against Prop B argues for essentially the status quo:
Money should only be spent in short-term appropriations for immediate governmental needs.
Prop. B is tax waste on its face, with no review of actual governmental needs being made by the Board of Supervisors or any other legislative body. In practice, governmental bodies almost never return extra, unneeded monies for fear that this might increase legislative review of their next annual budget request and will cost them money when they actually need it.
Many consider it a problem that politicians pick-and-choose only short-term projects – popular with voters at the moment – without enough consideration to how they will be maintained or funded in the long run.