Sandy A on Next Door 4/28/2026
Why I’m Voting NO on El Cerrito Measure C
“The El Cerrito Library Tax”
Not Actually Sandy
I support libraries. I support smart development. But Measure C, as written, raises serious concerns for me—and that’s why I’m voting NO.
1) The cost to homeowners is massive
This measure isn’t a small investment. Estimates put the burden at roughly $20,000–$30,000 per homeowner over time. That’s a significant financial commitment, especially given the broader cost-of-living pressures many residents are already facing.
2) Funding the library also subsidizes the broader TOD project
Measure C is being presented as a library funding measure, but in reality it is structurally tied to a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) project.
TOD financing typically combines:
• Public funding (like bonds or taxes)
• Subsidies for low-income housing units
• Revenue from market-rate units
In this case, public funding for the library helps enable the overall project by covering a major component of the development. That effectively reduces total project costs that would otherwise need to be financed, making the broader TOD more financially viable. In practical terms, that means taxpayer dollars are not only building a library—they are also helping support the economics of the larger development, including the portions delivered by private developers.
Whether you support TOD or not, that’s a different proposition than simply funding a standalone public library, and voters deserve clarity on that connection.
3) There are major developers involved
This project involves large, experienced developers, including Related California, along with individuals like Rick Holliday. These are not small, community-led efforts—they are sophisticated, well-capitalized players in the development space. That raises reasonable questions about who ultimately benefits from the public investment.
4) The site choice is extremely expensive—and lacks clarity for voters
The proposed library site comes with a high price tag:
• About $37 million upfront
• Roughly $93 million over the life of the bonds
Before approving a long-term tax measure of this scale, residents deserve clear, definitive information about the exact project location, scope, and total cost. Asking voters to commit to tens of millions of dollars without that level of specificity raises legitimate concerns about transparency and accountability. At a minimum, voters should know exactly what they are paying for—and where—before being asked to approve the funding.
5) The advocacy effort raises questions
I’ve been struck by what feels like a highly coordinated, well-funded campaign in favor of Measure C. That alone isn’t wrong—but it does make transparency important.
I would like to see clear confirmation that prominent advocates have no financial interest in the project.
This isn’t an accusation—it’s a request for openness. When public money and major development projects intersect, the public deserves full transparency.
6) Follow the money
Campaign finance records for Measure C are publicly available through the City of El Cerrito’s disclosure filings, and they deserve close scrutiny. Based on how projects like this are typically structured, donors to a “Yes” campaign are often aligned with the broader development—not just the public-facing component like a library. Large mixed-use projects create downstream economic opportunities: contractors compete for construction work, service providers may secure ongoing contracts (like waste collection, maintenance, and operations), and others benefit from the overall buildout. That doesn’t mean anything improper—but it does mean financial interests may be tied to the success of the overall TOD development, not solely the library itself. Voters should review the filings and consider who stands to benefit from the project as a whole.
7) The City’s own survey doesn’t support making this the top priority
According to the City’s 2025 community survey, residents did not rank libraries among the very top priorities. While about 70% said a new library was a high or medium priority, the highest priorities were things like fire safety, fiscally responsible budgeting, and maintaining city facilities.
That raises a fair question: if libraries are not the top priority identified by residents, why is this measure asking taxpayers to take on such a large financial burden for this project ahead of other core city services?
8) BART’s financial situation raises additional concerns about independence
The project site is tied to a BART parking lot, and that matters in the broader context. BART is currently facing a major structural budget shortfall, with projected deficits in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually if new funding isn’t secured. The agency has been clear that it needs more riders, more revenue, and new funding sources to remain viable.
At the same time, Rebecca Salzman, a longtime BART director, now serves as Mayor Pro Tem in El Cerrito. TOD projects on BART land are widely seen as a way to increase ridership and generate revenue—which, as policy, can make sense in a region facing a housing shortage.
But that overlap raises a reasonable question: can local leadership remain fully independent when a major city-backed project directly aligns with BART’s financial needs? This isn’t a claim of wrongdoing—it’s about potential conflicts of interest and the importance of clear separation between regional transit priorities and local taxpayer obligations.
Bottom line:
This measure asks residents to take on significant financial burden for a project that is more complex than advertised. Until there’s greater clarity on costs, structure, financial interests, and governance, I don’t think it earns my support.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 