The Fine Print Behind Measure C

Before you vote on Measure C, it’s worth taking a closer look at the official argument in favor. On its surface, it reads as straightforward and reassuring. But when you examine the details, a different picture emerges—one that relies heavily on selective framing, optimistic assumptions, and in some cases, claims that simply are not supported.

Let’s walk through it.

The campaign tells voters this is a new library for less than $1 a day. That framing is technically derived from the proposed rate of $0.17 per square foot, but it simplifies what is actually a long-term financial commitment. For a typical homeowner, the estimate of about $28 per month depends entirely on home size assumptions. Larger homes will pay significantly more. And importantly, this is not a fixed cost—the tax can increase annually based on inflation, with City Council approval. Over time, that “$1 a day” becomes something quite different.

We’re also told the measure pays for construction and ten years of operating costs. That part is only partially complete. After those first ten years, the ongoing cost of operating the library does not disappear. It is likely to shift back to the City’s General Fund. Prior estimates suggest that could be as high as roughly $800,000 per year—substantially more than what the City spends today. That means future budgets will have to absorb those costs, whether through cuts, reallocations, or additional revenue measures.

The senior exemption is another example where the promise does not match reality. While the measure references an exemption, it is tied to state programs that are either inactive or require participation in property tax deferral programs that place a lien on the home. In practice, very few—if any—El Cerrito seniors have qualified for similar exemptions in recent years. The exemption exists on paper, but not in a way most seniors can actually use.

Then there are the economic claims.

The argument suggests that a new library will boost nearby business activity by 23 percent and increase home values by $10,000. These are not El Cerrito-specific findings. There is no local data, no appraisal analysis, and no credible evidence supporting a flat increase in home values tied to this project. Real estate values are influenced by many factors—schools, location, market conditions, and broader economic trends. While amenities can contribute to desirability, assigning a specific dollar increase across all homes is not grounded in reality. It is campaign messaging, not financial analysis.

Similarly, the claim about increased local spending appears to be drawn from generalized studies, not conditions specific to our city. Without context or supporting data, it should be treated with caution.

The measure also emphasizes fiscal accountability through oversight and audits. While these mechanisms are standard and important, they do not control spending decisions. Oversight committees review and report—they do not prevent cost increases, budget pressures, or future funding gaps.

And then there is the question of who is making these arguments.

One of the named proponents, Mark Figone, is identified as a local business owner. What is not disclosed is that he does not live in El Cerrito. He would not personally bear the long-term residential tax burden in the same way homeowners do. At the same time, as a business owner, he stands to benefit from increased activity tied to the project. That doesn’t invalidate his perspective—but it is important context for voters evaluating whose interests are being represented. Another named proponent, Scott Lyons, who is listed as in El Cerrito science teacher, however he doesn’t live in El Cerrito.

This is not about whether libraries are valuable. They are. The question before voters is whether this specific proposal—with its structure, cost, and long-term implications—is the right approach for El Cerrito at this moment.

Because once approved, this is a 30+ year commitment. One that escalates over time. One that may create additional pressure on the City’s General Fund. And one that is being presented with claims that deserve closer scrutiny.

Voters deserve the full picture—not just the most appealing version of it.