Only one S.F. district lets residents vote on local budgeting. Why?

The giant octopus painted on a former SFMTA parking lot was partly funded by the District 7 participatory budget. So were the new volleyball nets at Commodore Sloat Elementary School, local “disaster resilience training,” and a new course on digital literacy for area seniors and parents. 

Setting up a system where neighborhoods could take a sliver of city revenue, propose local uses for it, and then vote directly on those proposals, was a red-hot civic trend not long ago. From its radical origins in 1980s Porto Alegre, Brazil to its 2009 United States debut in Chicago’s 49th Ward, participatory budgets were seen as a way to get apathetic residents engaged in city government. Residents as young as 16 could vote, as long as they could prove they lived in the neighborhood. Mayoral candidates campaigned on it. District 3 launched one in 2012. Districts 7, 8, and 10 followed. 

At the moment, District 7 is the last participatory budget standing, although Supervisor Chyanne Chen has expressed interest in following suit in District 11. District 7’s participatory budget now includes some $400,000 from San Francisco’s $7 billion general fund, a relatively small allowance, but an improvement over earlier years; the first participatory budget was seeded with $100,00. 

It’s impossible to know if the $400,000 means that District 7 gets more money than other districts. The many districts that don’t use participatory budgeting have more nonprofits and other projects funded directly through the city. But it is a sum of money that residents have a direct say in spending, and that does not happen elsewhere. Typically, to deal directly with the city, a group has to be eligible to be a city supplier, and that is difficult for individuals, groups and neighborhood associations. 

“It’s a lot of work for the staff,” said Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who added that the heavy lift is likely why her colleagues do not run their own participatory budget processes. 

Melgar sees the work as a way for her office to communicate with the community. 

Others have not found it to be the most effective way to get communities involved. District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton said, in an interview with Mission Local, that when his predecessor, Malia Cohen, ran participatory budgeting, it wasn’t reflective of the entire community. “Only certain groups of people were participating: More affluent people,” he said.

“It’s labor intensive,” said Norman Yee, who was district supervisor before Melgar and set up the district’s participatory budget. “When you add a program — where you’re directly administering it — it’s additional work for your staff.” 

The work is one hurdle. To begin now, other supervisors would have to fight for the funding during a time where the city is under financial strain. Yee first funded the program through addbacks — money the supervisors get to have a say over from the mayor’s budget proposal — before District 7’s allotment was baked into the general fund. 

How it works in District 7

Every year, local organizations send in project proposals, residents cast votes for their favorite proposals, and grants are distributed among those that rank the highest and obtain at least 400 votes. Every year, about $150,000 from the fund is earmarked for Vision Zero projects in the district, a decision made by Melgar’s office. 

Apart from this, the money is up for a community vote. Last year, 15 proposals received funding, including a parklet on Hearst street and picnic tables at Commodore Sloat Elementary School. 

The participatory budget’s monetary investment may be relatively small, but the resources required to administer the project can add up. 

After the proposals come in, Emma Hare, Melgar’s legislative aide, reviews each one with a volunteer steering committee (whose members are appointed by Melgar) and staff from several city departments to determine feasibility. Then, for proposals that make financial sense and are selected, she connects applicants with the relevant government departments, which manage the grant money and see the project to fruition. “I have a lot of spreadsheets,” said Hare. 

For instance, for mural projects, money might go to the Arts Commission or, for traffic-calming projects, that money would go to the SFMTA. 

For Hare, participatory budgeting is a model for civic engagement. It gets residents involved in local governance, and helps legislators understand their constituents better by turning the campaigning, decision-making and project management for small infrastructure improvements over to them. 

Many of the projects proposed (and selected) also involve local artists and students. For example, the Midtown Terrace Homeowners Association proposed a mural for the Clarendon pedestrian bridge near an elementary school of the same name. Once approved, the association worked with the Youth Art Exchange, a citywide nonprofit, to hire Anthony Jimenez, a local artist, to paint a mural and supervise high-school students to work with Jimenez. 

“It’s a great way for community leaders to understand their neighbors and their constituencies, and understand government bureaucracy,” said Hare. “Selfishly, it allows me to share in the frustrations of government bureaucracy with my constituents.” 

Specifically, it helps share the experience of the bureaucratic timeline. “That’s one of the frustrations; it’s not instantaneous,” said Sally Maske, a volunteer with the West Portal Neighborhood Association, which applied for (and received) funding for flower baskets about 10 years ago, and money for murals and flower beds more recently. 

For each project, the neighborhood association had to work with each department connected to the project and figure out, among other things, the work needed to be done by union workers, and the work that could be done by volunteers, said Maske. “It’s not like you can expect it to be completed overnight.” 

Not all beneficiaries of the participatory budget made it across the finish line. Yee admits some projects were never completed under his tenure. But, says Melgar, participatory budgeting has offered a way for residents to engage with and enjoy their district. It has also been a welcome financial resource for District 7, a part of the city that generally has fewer financial needs and generally fewer nonprofits making these kinds of investments in the district.  

“It’s different when you see a bench in front of the bus stop that you use, that you proposed, that you voted for, and that’s there,” said Melgar. “It’s tangible.”  

Proposals for this year’s round of participatory budgeting can be submitted starting February 17, 2025 until March 28, 2025. Read more about the submission process here. Proposals must be submitted by neighborhood nonprofits, merchant groups or institutions located in District 7.