Parcel Tax Legitimacy: El Cerrito Residents Speak Out

Shaped by expressions of Concerned El Cerrito Residents

More and more residents are speaking out against this initiative.

Like many El Cerrito residents, we value our library and believe the community deserves a modern, welcoming facility. Supporting a new library, however, does not require blind acceptance of a deeply flawed financing plan and a process that feels anything but transparent.

What troubles us most about the proposed parcel tax—expected to appear on a June ballot—is its tax-dependent financing structure. This is not a one-time, limited assessment. The tax can run for many years and, more concerning, can be increased annually at the City Council’s discretion. There are no meaningful protections against escalation. For residents on fixed incomes—particularly seniors, who make up roughly 40% of our population—this is alarming.

Equally troubling is what the proposal doesn’t include:

• No meaningful exemptions or relief for seniors or financially vulnerable residents
• No clear guardrails limiting future tax increases
• No firm commitment that costs will remain stable over time

We are also deeply concerned by how this measure has been framed as a so-called “Citizens’ Initiative.” In practice, this designation allows the tax to pass with 50% plus one vote, rather than the two-thirds threshold normally required for tax increases. While the City denies involvement, that claim strains credibility.

At the recent public meeting, City staff and councilmembers appeared not only present, but fully invested in the measure’s success. The tone was not exploratory or balanced. It felt predetermined. The preferred outcome—both the tax structure and a Transit-Oriented Development library at the BART Plaza—seemed settled long before public input was solicited.

What we did not see was a serious consideration of alternatives.

Instead, residents were shown polished, aspirational images of multi-use developments presented by the owner’s representative. These visuals were undeniably appealing—but they bear little resemblance to what the proposed library is likely to become, given budget constraints, site limitations, and competing priorities. The effect was more sales pitch than civic discussion.

The overall flavor of the meeting left many of us feeling managed rather than engaged. When a councilmember later criticized “misinformation on social media,” it rang hollow. The City has made no comparable effort to proactively share clear, comprehensive, and accessible information with residents. When official communication is sparse, of course, confusion fills the gap.

Shiny new libraries are easy to sell. Long-term tax risk is harder to explain.

To be clear: we are not opposed to a new library for El Cerrito. We are opposed to this plan, this financing structure, and this lopsided process—one that appears designed to minimize scrutiny, lower the voting threshold, and move forward regardless of community concern.

Residents deserve honesty, options, and real choice—not a single path presented as inevitable.

Before ballots printed, El Cerrito should slow down, lay out the full financial implications, consider genuine alternatives, and design protections for those who will bear the greatest burden. Anything less risks undermining trust in local government—and that cost is far higher than any parcel tax.

Why this parcel tax proposal deserves closer scrutiny

Like many El Cerrito residents, we value our library and believe the community deserves a modern, welcoming facility. Supporting a new library, however, does not require blind acceptance of a deeply flawed financing plan and a process that feels anything but transparent.

What troubles us most about the proposed parcel tax—expected to appear on a June ballot—is its tax-dependent financing structure. This is not a one-time, limited assessment. The tax can run for many years and, more concerning, can be increased annually at the City Council’s discretion. There are no meaningful protections against escalation. For residents on fixed incomes—particularly seniors, who make up roughly 40% of our population—this is alarming.

Equally troubling is what the proposal doesn’t include:

• No meaningful exemptions or relief for seniors or financially vulnerable residents
• No clear guardrails limiting future tax increases
• No firm commitment that costs will remain stable over time

We are also deeply concerned by how this measure has been framed as a so-called “Citizens’ Initiative.” In practice, this designation allows the tax to pass with 50% plus one vote, rather than the two-thirds threshold normally required for tax increases. While the City denies involvement, that claim strains credibility.

At the recent public meeting, City staff and councilmembers appeared not only present, but fully invested in the measure’s success. The tone was not exploratory or balanced. It felt predetermined. The preferred outcome—both the tax structure and a Transit-Oriented Development library at the BART Plaza—seemed settled long before public input was solicited.

What we did not see was a serious consideration of alternatives.

Instead, residents were shown polished, aspirational images of multi-use developments presented by the owner’s representative. These visuals were undeniably appealing—but they bear little resemblance to what the proposed library is likely to become, given budget constraints, site limitations, and competing priorities. The effect was more sales pitch than civic discussion.

The overall flavor of the meeting left many of us feeling managed rather than engaged. When a councilmember later criticized “misinformation on social media,” it rang hollow. The City has made no comparable effort to proactively share clear, comprehensive, and accessible information with residents. When official communication is sparse, of course confusion fills the gap.

Shiny new libraries are easy to sell. Long-term tax risk is harder to explain.

To be clear: we are not opposed to a new library for El Cerrito. We are opposed to this plan, this financing structure, and this lopsided process—one that appears designed to minimize scrutiny, lower the voting threshold, and move forward regardless of community concern.

Residents deserve honesty, options, and real choice—not a single path presented as inevitable.

Now that signatures have already been gathered and the measure is headed for the ballot, the responsibility shifts squarely to the City. If the Council chooses to place this initiative on a June 2026 ballot—at an estimated cost of at least $80,000, paid from reserves the City does not have—residents deserve an honest explanation of why that timing is being pursued. A rushed, off-cycle election funded with scarce reserves raises legitimate questions, particularly when it appears driven by a lack of confidence in achieving broad voter support. At minimum, the City owes the public full transparency on the long-term financial implications, real consideration of alternatives, and meaningful protections for those most vulnerable to rising taxes. Anything less further erodes public trust—and that cost will far exceed the price of any election or parcel tax.