There is a difference between civic engagement and political spam.
Over the last several weeks, many contributors and residents opposed to Measure C have reported receiving unsolicited campaign emails from Greg Lyman’s Yes on C campaign despite never signing up for his mailing list. Several recipients say they never attended campaign events, never donated, and never opted into campaign communications.
Yet the emails keep arriving.
That raises reasonable questions about how contact information was gathered, how broadly campaign databases are being shared or scraped, and whether residents are being treated as participants in a civic discussion or simply as targets in a political marketing operation.
What is especially striking is the contrast between the polished tone of the message and the underlying tactics behind it.
The email is carefully consultant-crafted. It attempts to sound measured, neighborly, and thoughtful. It repeatedly invokes “community conversation,” “good faith,” and “facts.” But beneath the polished language are familiar campaign techniques: selective framing, omission of inconvenient facts, and strategic ambiguity designed to soften public skepticism.
And nowhere is that more obvious than the continued obfuscation around the library location.
The “No Final Decision” Claim Is Misleading
The email repeatedly suggests that no site decision has been made and that multiple options remain under consideration.
That is technically convenient language, but it ignores reality.
The measure clearly states the tax is for a new library.
For years, the Plaza Transit-Oriented Development site has been the clear political preference of four councilmembers and senior city leadership. The city has already invested years of planning effort, consultant work, strategic planning integration, negotiations, and public positioning around the Plaza concept.
Councilmember William Ktsanes even attempted to have the Council formally discuss alternatives to the TOD library concept. His motion did not even receive a second.
A second is not approval. It simply allows public discussion and a recorded vote. The refusal to even entertain discussion spoke volumes.
Residents were told “all options are on the table,” while political behavior consistently suggested otherwise.
That matters because voters deserve transparency about what they are actually being asked to fund.
The “$1 Per Year Land Lease” Framing Leaves Out Important Details
The email presents the BART land arrangement almost like a gift:
“We would get use of the land for a total of $1 per year for 99 years.”
That sounds wonderful until residents realize the city would not own the land.
A 99-year ground lease is not the same as public ownership. Future generations of taxpayers would still be funding a major public asset built on land controlled by another entity.
The email also avoids discussing the broader costs associated with the TOD scenario, including parking impacts, infrastructure integration, construction complexity, and the realities of building within a dense transit-oriented development.
Instead, the arrangement is framed almost romantically, as though the land issue has been magically solved.
It has not.
The “Financial Recovery” Narrative Deserves More Context
The email strongly suggests the city has solved its financial problems because reserves improved after a State Auditor review.
That is incomplete.
Yes, the city improved certain reserve metrics after scrutiny from the California State Auditor. But reserve recovery alone does not eliminate long-term structural budget concerns, nor does it signal financial health.
El Cerrito has faced years in which expenditures have grown faster than revenues. Pension obligations, salary growth, infrastructure demands, deferred maintenance, and rising operating costs continue to place pressure on the budget.
Being above a minimum reserve benchmark does not suddenly mean every large capital project becomes fiscally prudent.
Those are two entirely different discussions.
The Pension Forecast Is Presented as Certainty
Perhaps the most aggressive claim in the email involves future CalPERS obligations.
Residents are told that by 2040 the city will supposedly be paying $3 million less annually toward pensions, freeing up money for future library operations.
That projection is presented almost as inevitability.
But pension forecasting is highly sensitive to assumptions including:
- investment returns
- staffing levels
- salary growth
- actuarial changes
- safety employee costs
- future market conditions
El Cerrito maintains significant public safety staffing, which historically creates upward pension pressure. The email presents optimistic projections while minimizing the uncertainty and volatility that have repeatedly affected CalPERS agencies statewide.
There is a major difference between “possible future relief” and “guaranteed future operating capacity.”
“Broad Community Support” Does Not Equal Consensus
The campaign repeatedly cites endorsements and volunteer support as proof the project is fiscally prudent.
But endorsements are not financial analysis.
Many residents opposing Measure C are not anti-library. They are questioning:
- whether a $37+ million project is appropriate
- whether the city should prioritize rehabilitation over expansion
- whether long-term tax obligations are justified
- whether the public has been given a fully transparent process
Those are legitimate public policy questions, not evidence that residents “do not value libraries.”
The Spam Problem Reflects a Bigger Issue
In some ways, the unsolicited email issue mirrors the broader Measure C debate itself.
Residents increasingly feel that political leadership is talking at them rather than with them.
The campaign’s messaging emphasizes trust, expertise, and civic virtue while often dismissing skepticism as misinformation or negativity.
But people notice inconsistencies.
They notice when “multiple options” somehow always point back to the same preferred outcome.
They notice when financial optimism is presented with more confidence than caution.
And they notice when political campaigns somehow acquire email addresses they never knowingly provided.
Community engagement should involve transparency, consent, and honest debate.
Not slick messaging wrapped around selective facts and distributed through unsolicited political email lists.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 