When “Facts” Stop Being Facts

A Response to Measure C Messaging and the “Myths and Facts” Campaign

Chelsi Sparti has become the new spokesperson for the YES on Measure C campaign.

The campaign supporting Measure C has published a “Myths and Facts” page:

A recent interview featuring the new campaign spokesperson Chelsi in conversation with Wally:

Chelsi is not featured on the “Myths and Facts” page—but she is now the public voices advancing the same messaging. Taken together, these represent the campaign’s clearest attempt to shape how voters understand this measure. Which makes one thing especially important: if you are going to call something a fact, it needs to be the whole truth.

The “Myths and Facts” framing is powerful. It signals to voters that something is settled, accurate, and not open to interpretation. But when key information is left out or selectively framed, it crosses from advocacy into something else. Not necessarily false—but misleading by omission. And in a 30+ year tax decision, that matters.

In the interview, Chelsi suggests the tax would cost about $28 per month. That number may reflect a starting point, but it leaves out a critical fact: the measure allows the City Council to increase the tax annually based on inflation with a simple majority vote. This does not go back to voters. It is built into the measure and can be enacted administratively.

Supporters frame this as the Council may increase the tax. That is technically true. But it is equally true that the authority is already granted, there is no obligation for restraint, and historically this Council has not passed on opportunities to increase revenue when given the option. The result is that $28 per month is not the cost. It is the entry point to an escalating tax of about 5% per year.

In the interview, Chelsi’s introductory commentary, speaks as if we don’t already have a library. We do have a library. We love the location and we own the library. She suggested that if the library is not built, there would be no reason to collect the tax. What she does not say is that the measure itself does not automatically make the tax disappear if the project fails to materialize. Voters should understand that approving the tax is not the same as guaranteeing a completed library. The tax authority can outlive delays, changes, and shifting plans, which means residents would still be on the hook even if the promised outcome never arrives.

Chelsi also suggests that the location of the new library has not been determined. That statement does not align with how this project has been discussed historically. For years, the City’s planning documents and strategic direction have centered on the El Cerrito Plaza area as the intended site.

The city has already loaned the developer at least $350,000 and they have already entered into contracts at El Cerrito Plaza.

That has been the working assumption reflected in prior planning efforts, development discussions, and public-facing concepts tied to transit-oriented development. More recently, the messaging has shifted to emphasize flexibility and uncertainty around location.

Voters should understand the distinction: the measure may not legally lock in a site, but the policy direction and planning history have consistently pointed to the Plaza. Presenting the location as entirely undecided without that context creates a different impression than the one supported by the City’s own trajectory.

In the interview, there is also a clear implication that if Measure C does not pass, the current library could be at risk.

Let’s be clear: this is entirely untrue.

El Cerrito’s library is part of the Contra Costa County Library system. The County funds and operates the library, and the City contributes a relatively small amount for extended hours. There is no policy or funding trigger that would cause closure if this measure fails. The baseline service continues regardless of Measure C. Framing the vote as a choice between a new library or no library is not a factual representation. It introduces fear into what should be a financial decision.

The City’s own materials make clear that this is a long-term parcel tax tied to square footage, designed to run for decades, with built-in escalation authority, and funding operations only for a limited period before shifting costs back to the General Fund. This is a complex financial commitment. But the campaign messaging simplifies it into something that feels small, certain, and necessary. That gap between simplicity and reality is where the ethical concern lies.

Looking at both the website and the interview, a pattern emerges: anchor voters to a low monthly number, omit or downplay escalation, present future assumptions as certainty, reframe known elements like location as uncertain, and suggest loss of current services if the measure fails. Each point, on its own, may seem minor. Together, they create a narrative that is more reassuring than reality supports.

If you haven’t seen the interview, it’s worth watching:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWXtWMyE6iO/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

It’s pretty clear there are two very different interpretations being presented. You can make up your own mind.

This is not about whether a library is a good idea. It’s about how we ask voters to pay for it. If the case for Measure C is strong, it should stand on transparent numbers, full financial context, and honest tradeoffs. Not on selective framing. Because when something is labeled a fact, it should reflect the full picture—not just the version that’s easier to sell.