IT'S NO SURPRISE that the San Francisco city budget was a mess this year. The local economy is still reeling from the Bush recession, and state and federal support for cities continues to shrink. But even in relatively good times, San Francisco lacks the revenue it needs to provide the range of services that humane and compassionate cities are forced to provide these days.

That means San Francisco is going to need substantially more tax revenue than it currently gets – not just this year but next year, and the year after, and for the foreseeable future. And because of an odd twist in state law, and the heated presidential race, there's a rare opportunity this fall to win approval for a range of new taxes.

Almost any new local tax must be approved by two-thirds of the voters. That's a tough margin, and it means that even modest downtown opposition can doom any progressive tax measure. But state law offers an opening: if local legislators are up for election on the same ballot, a tax measure can be enacted with just a simple majority. Since half the seats on the Board of Supervisors are up this fall – and turnout is projected to reach record levels – this is the best opportunity the city will see in at least four years.

The supervisors should take full advantage of it.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has proposed two tax measures as part of his budget: a modest new business tax and a quarter-cent hike in the local sales tax. The business tax increase is far too low (although it does close some glaring loopholes in current law), and sales taxes are generally among the most regressive ways to raise money. Still, the city desperately needs the money. And as Sup. Tom Ammiano, who supports the sales tax plan, notes, more than half the new revenue would come from either business-to-business transactions or from commuters and tourists. We don't love the sales tax increase, but under the circumstances, we can live with it, and the supervisors should go ahead and put both of Newsom's proposals on the ballot (although they should increase the business tax and eliminate the sunset provision that would allow it to end in five years). But they shouldn't stop there.

Sup. Chris Daly is pushing an increase in the city's parking tax, which would primarily impact people who drive their cars downtown. Daly and others also support raising the real estate transfer tax. There's also some discussion of a residential occupancy tax – in essence, a tax on landlords. All of those are good ideas, all would bring in substantial amounts of new money, and all of them are more fair and progressive than Newsom's sales tax.

The more progressive tax measures don't have to be linked to the Newsom budget package; they can (and should) be on the ballot individually. But the supervisors should take the opportunity to push as many new progressive revenue measures as they can, when the opportunity is there.

P.S. Why, with money so tight, are the supervisors not demanding an increase in Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s franchise fee? They should direct the city attorney to immediately find a legal way to break the ancient 1939 franchise deal and recapture the millions of dollars the city is losing every year to the corrupt private monopoly.