https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-is-officially-...
https://calpensions.com/2017/07/03/san-francisco-pension-deb...
The following case relates to just one particular benefits measure:
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-loses-lawsuit-against-may...
City leadership itself has been relatively fiscally responsible. For example,
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-taking-steps-...
Which is actually quite impressive, IMO, because the pressures to spend are enormous, and the city does indeed spend quite a lot. The politics at the Board of Supervisors is intense and there's a large populist faction that would like to spend much more. But at the end of the day what really matters is who is elected to City Hall, and at least when it comes to fiscal responsibility Newsom, Lee, and now Breed put a strong emphasis on long-term budget viability. But sometimes--like with voter-mandated expenditures--their hands are tied. Mayor Breed opposed the recent Prop C which raised several hundred million in new revenue for spending on homelessness. (She supported a similar future ballot measure, but wanted to wait things out. Working under Mayor Lee she already had a sense of what was in the pipeline and wanted to see how those initiatives developed. And Lee and others were expecting another downturn very soon so were more concerned with shoring up the budget to avoid having to make deep cuts.)
EDIT: Also, the growth in healthcare costs is eating everybody alive. What should really worry people is whether California voters mandate single payer. Because California is limited in how it can control cost growth--most policy control resides in Washington, e.g. pharmaceutical regulation--it'll be a huge problem. But we won't be able to blame politicians for it.
'The grand jury suggests voters may have been misled by official ballot pamphlet cost information on two of the three “significant” pension increases described in the report. A dozen retroactive retirement benefit increases between 1996 and 2008 are listed in a report appendix.
Voters were told that even with a retroactive pension increase for most employees (Proposition C in 2000) the city is not expected to make an annual payment to the retirement system “for at least the next 15 years.”
The eight-year period with no annual city payment to the retirement system, known as a “contribution holiday,” ended in 2004.
For a police and firefighter pension increase (Proposition H in 2002) voters were told that with a “large surplus” city contributions should not be needed for at least 10 years — but if needed, police and firefighters would pay “all or part” of the added cost.'