San Francisco voters will head to the polls on June 2 to decide whether the city's politicians should face something truly revolutionary: actual consequences for overstaying their welcome.

A ballot measure proposes amending the City Charter to impose lifetime term limits on members of the Board of Supervisors. Under the current system, supervisors can serve two consecutive four-year terms, take a four-year breather, and then waltz right back into office like nothing happened. Rinse, repeat, collect pension.

The proposed change would end that merry-go-round for good.

Let's be honest about what the current system produces: a permanent political class that treats elected office like a revolving door — step out, do a quick stint at a nonprofit or lobbying firm, then step right back in. It's the political equivalent of "we were on a break." Except taxpayers are footing the bill for the reunion tour.

Lifetime term limits aren't a radical concept. They're a recognition that representative government works best when it's actually representative — when fresh voices, new ideas, and people with real-world experience cycle through public service instead of the same faces running the same playbook decade after decade.

Critics will argue that institutional knowledge matters, and that's fair. But San Francisco has had no shortage of experienced politicians, and look where it's gotten us: a $14 billion budget, a homelessness crisis that defies comprehension, and downtown vacancy rates that would make a ghost town blush. Maybe "experience" isn't the magic ingredient we've been told it is.

This measure is a small but meaningful step toward accountability. It tells politicians that public service is a privilege with an expiration date — not a career path with built-in sabbaticals.

Vote accordingly on June 2.