The study's conclusion isn't exactly shocking to anyone who's watched storefronts go dark on Market Street or tallied up the tech companies quietly relocating headcount to Austin and Miami. San Francisco's tax burden — layered, complex, and often punitive toward the businesses that actually generate jobs — is making it harder for the city to bounce back from the pandemic downturn. Not impossible. Harder. And in a competitive landscape where other cities are rolling out the welcome mat, "harder" is a luxury we can't afford.

Prop D enters this debate as yet another tax policy decision where voters are being asked to weigh short-term revenue against long-term economic health. The problem, as usual, is that both sides are painting wildly different pictures of what the measure will actually do. Proponents frame it as necessary funding. Critics see it as another brick in the wall that's keeping businesses from setting up shop — or staying.

Here's what we know for certain: San Francisco's budget has ballooned over the past decade, and yet the city's core services — clean streets, public safety, functioning transit — haven't kept pace. We're not getting what we're paying for. That should matter more than any ideological commitment to taxing our way to prosperity.

Before voters pull the lever on Prop D, they should ask a simple question: If the taxes we already have aren't delivering results, why would more of the same be any different? The definition of fiscal insanity is raising rates while watching your tax base walk out the door. San Francisco needs a recovery strategy built on attracting investment, not punishing it.

Vote accordingly.