Across kitchen tables, at community meetings, and in quiet conversations between neighbors, one concern keeps surfacing:

How much is too much?

I a few weeks, El Cerrito residents are being asked (again) to approve multiple new and extended taxes at the local, county, and regional levels. Each proposal is framed as necessary. Each promises to protect something important.

But taken together, they tell a very different story.

A Stack of New Taxes—All at Once

Here’s what’s currently on the table:

Countywide Sales Tax Increases

Healthcare Services (June 2026): Proposed +0.625% to backfill federal funding cuts, generating roughly $151 million annually for five years.

Regional Transit – Connect Bay Area (November 2026): Proposed +0.5% for BART and transit operations.

If both pass, El Cerrito’s sales tax could climb to 11.375%.

That would exceed the current highest rate in California. Let that sink in.

Local Property Tax Measures

WCCUSD Parcel Tax Renewal (Measure T): $0.072 per square foot to fund school libraries, counselors, and athletics.

El Cerrito Library Parcel Tax Initiative: Starting at $0.17 per square foot for buildings and $100 for vacant parcels to fund a new library.

And More May Be Coming

According to public statements, Greg Lyman has indicated that a future effort could include another tax measure to fund a new public safety building.

That means 2026 may not be the end of the conversation—it could be the beginning of an ongoing cycle of new tax proposals.

The Real Impact: Death by a Thousand Cuts

Individually, each measure may sound reasonable.

Together, they create compounding financial pressure:

Higher sales taxes every time you shop.

Higher property taxes tied to your home size.

Additional parcel taxes layered on top of existing obligations.

This isn’t one decision.

It’s a stacked set of decisions—all hitting the same residents, in the same year.

A Competitive Disadvantage for Local Businesses

At 11.375%, El Cerrito risks becoming one of the most expensive places to shop in California.

Consumers have options: Albany, Berkeley, Richmond, and online retailers.

When the price difference becomes noticeable, behavior changes.

Higher tax rates don’t just impact residents—they impact local businesses, sales tax revenue stability, and the long-term economic health of the city.

What’s Missing from the Conversation

Concerned residents are asking reasonable questions:

Where is the prioritization across all these funding requests?

Has the city evaluated what residents can realistically afford?

Are we fully leveraging efficiencies, cost controls, or staffing alignment before asking for more?

Why are major financial decisions being made one measure at a time, instead of looking at the full picture?

Because the reality is simple:

Money doesn’t grow on trees.

The Hard Conversation We’re Avoiding

At some point, leadership has to make choices.

If costs are rising faster than revenues, there are only a few options: raise taxes, reduce costs, improve efficiency, or some combination of all three.

Many residents are now asking a harder question:

Has the city right-sized its workforce to match current needs and financial reality?

There is a growing concern that staffing levels may exceed what is sustainable—and that without addressing this, taxpayers will continue to be asked to close the gap.

A Moment for Fiscal Honesty

El Cerrito residents are not anti-library. They are not anti-schools. They are not anti-healthcare or transit.

They are asking for something more fundamental:

Balance. Transparency. Prioritization.

And most importantly:

A plan that doesn’t assume taxpayers can absorb unlimited increases.

Before You Vote

Take a step back and look at the full picture, not just one measure at a time.

Because in 2026, the real question isn’t whether any single tax sounds reasonable.

It’s this:

Can our community sustain all of them at once?

Concerned residents are paying attention.

And increasingly, they’re asking leaders to do the same.

Inspired by research from an informed and concerned citizen.

One of the most troubling aspects of Measure C is not simply the price tag. It is the timeline.

Residents were repeatedly told that a new library at El Cerrito Plaza would cost about $21 million and save taxpayers roughly $10 million compared to other options. That message was used for years to build support for the project and to gather signatures for a citizens initiative.

But according to the timeline now available, the city’s own consultant had already produced a report showing a dramatically different number before the signature campaign even began.

That matters.

Because once signatures are gathered and certified for a citizens initiative, the political momentum changes completely. At that point, voters are no longer being asked whether the project concept makes sense. They are being pushed toward approving a specific measure that has already qualified for the ballot.

Here is the timeline residents should consider carefully.

In 2023, the public was told the Plaza library concept would cost approximately $21 million. Residents were also told the Plaza approach would save around $10 million compared to a standalone library.

Those numbers became part of the public narrative surrounding the project.

Then on April 29, 2025, the city’s consultant, Griffin Structures, reportedly produced a report showing the projected cost had risen to approximately $37.2 million.

That is not a minor adjustment.

That is a roughly 77% increase over the number residents had been hearing.

Yet on July 4, 2025, the Committee for a Plaza Station Library, headed by Greg Lyman, launched its signature-gathering campaign, while public messaging still centered on the older $21 million figure and the claim of massive savings.

The signatures were gathered.

The initiative qualified.

And only afterward, in January 2026, was the Griffin report finally made public, revealing the substantially higher projected cost.

That sequence raises obvious questions:

• Why were residents still hearing $21 million after the consultant had reportedly identified a $37.2 million estimate?
• Why wasn’t the updated cost information broadly disclosed before signatures were gathered?
• Would some residents have declined to sign if they knew the estimated cost had increased by more than $16 million?
• Can voters make informed decisions if critical financial information surfaces only after the initiative qualifies?

This is bigger than whether someone supports or opposes a new library.

Most residents support libraries.

Most residents support public investment when it is transparent, financially responsible, and honestly presented.

The issue here is trust.

Citizens initiatives carry enormous weight because residents assume they are signing based on complete and accurate information. If key financial realities were already known but not disclosed until after the petition process was complete, people have every right to question whether the public was given the full picture at the moment it mattered most.

A project that is financially sound should be able to withstand scrutiny before signatures are collected — not after.

Inspired by research from an informed and concerned citizen.

The city’s own numbers don’t add up. Here’s the simple version.

Measure C is projected to collect about $3.1 million per year in parcel tax revenue.

The annual bond payment is estimated at $2.42 million. That leaves roughly $680,000.

Now layer in the cost to operate a larger, 20,000 square foot library. The city’s own impact report puts those additional annual costs between $396,000 and $797,000. That includes extended hours, maintenance, utilities, and equipment on top of what Contra Costa County Library already funds.

At the high end, there is nothing left. At the low end, the margin is thin, and that is before a single cost overrun, staffing adjustment, or unexpected expense.

That is the baseline.

What Happens When Lenders Do Their Homework

Before anyone lends $37 million, bond buyers and rating agencies run their own scenarios. They do not rely on best-case assumptions.

If construction costs come in 10 percent higher, annual debt service rises to about $2.66 million.
At 20 percent higher, it climbs to roughly $2.91 million.

If interest rates land at 6 percent instead of 5 percent, annual payments move closer to $2.70 million.

Combine higher rates with a 20 percent cost overrun, and annual debt service reaches about $3.24 million.

That exceeds total projected tax revenue, before paying a single dollar to operate the building.

At that point, the question is no longer about optimism. It is about feasibility.

The Revenue Question No One Has Answered

There is another issue that deserves attention.

When the city conducted its community surveys, residents were told Measure C would generate approximately $2.7 million per year.

The official impact report later used a higher figure, about $3.16 million. That is a $460,000 increase.

No clear explanation has been provided for the change.

A Public Records Act request was filed for the underlying data. The city declined to release it, stating that disclosure was not in the public interest.

That response may be sufficient in a public debate. It will not be sufficient in a credit review.

What Bond Markets Actually Care About

Bond buyers are not swayed by messaging. They look for

Reliable and consistent revenue projections
Clear documentation and transparent assumptions
Adequate coverage above debt service
Realistic operating cost forecasts
A demonstrated ability to manage risk

If revenues are uncertain, margins are thin, and costs are rising, lenders do not ignore it. They price it or they walk away.

The Bottom Line

This is not a question of whether El Cerrito values its library. Most people do.

The question is whether this specific financial plan is strong enough to support $37 million in borrowing.

Right now, the numbers suggest a plan with little room for error, unanswered questions about revenue, and real exposure to cost increases.

Before asking voters to approve the tax, the city should be able to clearly answer a straightforward question

Who, exactly, will lend El Cerrito $37 million on these terms?

Influenced by Social Media Posts from a Concerned Citizen

Some longtime residents still remember when city hall proposed the big multi-screen mega theater complex near Del Norte BART, the $14 million redevelopment deal involving Dayton-Hudson and Target, and the eventual conversion of that site into a Safeway after Target left for Richmond.

That history matters because many residents remember that Target did not remain in El Cerrito long-term. After significant public investment and redevelopment effort, the store eventually relocated to Richmond, leaving El Cerrito with the long-term consequences of the project while the retailer moved on to a larger regional location. For many residents, that became a cautionary example of the risks associated with large, high-stakes economic development ventures in a smaller city.

El Cerrito is a city of roughly 25,000 people with a relatively small budget. Large redevelopment bets carry real financial risks when the planning assumptions are wrong or market conditions change. When projects underperform, residents often end up facing higher taxes, service reductions, or ongoing fiscal pressure to close the gap.

Many residents see the proposed 20,000-square-foot library as another example of the same pattern. The proposal would create a facility roughly three times the size of the existing library in a city this small, despite broader trends showing declining physical library foot traffic and changing usage patterns as more services move online. Contra Costa County library usage statistics and national library trend reports have shown long-term pressure on traditional in-person circulation and visitation patterns.

Reasonable people can disagree about growth and development, but many residents believe El Cerrito’s history shows that flashy or overly ambitious projects are not always sound economic development policy for a smaller community. That history is part of why some residents are skeptical of major new financial commitments today.

A concerned citizen recently assembled a timeline of city documents, campaign statements, and official reports that raises a serious question for El Cerrito voters:

If leaders now say the proposed library could go in multiple locations, why does the public record show years of commitment to El Cerrito Plaza?

That question deserves more than campaign talking points.

Nearly a Decade of Direction Toward Plaza

According to materials highlighted by the concerned citizen, the path appears consistent.

In 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution directing staff to work with BART to study the feasibility of placing a library at the El Cerrito Plaza station site as part of the Transit Oriented Development project.

By September 2023, a public forum presentation reportedly stated that locating the library within the BART TOD project would save taxpayers approximately $10 million.

That same presentation projected construction could begin as early as 2025 if voters approved funding.

In August 2024, city FAQ materials reportedly continued the same theme, stating that incorporating the library into the Plaza project would cost about two thirds as much as a standalone library, with savings exceeding $10 million.

Then in December 2024, a city Q&A regarding the Owner’s Representative RFP allegedly described the TOD opportunity in unmistakable terms as the final opportunity to incorporate the library into the project.

Not one opportunity.

The final opportunity.

That language does not sound like five equal options under active consideration.

Even 2026 Reports Pointed to Plaza

The concerned citizen also cites the city’s own 2026 initiative impact report, which reportedly stated that the current direction of the City Council was to pursue the El Cerrito Plaza BART TOD location.

That is important because it suggests the Plaza site was still the active path even as public debate intensified.

Another resident cited language saying the city, BART, and the development team had already agreed upon a financing and real estate framework to allow construction of a new library within one of the approved affordable housing buildings, and that written contracts were being advanced.

If accurate, that sounds far beyond a casual concept.

That sounds like implementation planning.

Then the Messaging Changed

Only after several things happened did a new narrative seem to emerge:

Costs reportedly rose from earlier estimates around $21.2 million to roughly $37 million.

The city did not apply for grants that supporters had pointed to as part of the funding picture.

Community resistance grew.

At that point, voters began hearing that there were multiple sites and broad flexibility.

Residents are right to ask whether this was a genuine reopening of options or simply a political repositioning once the original plan became harder to sell.

The Cost Gap Still Matters

The same concerned citizen notes that refurbishment of the current library has been discussed at approximately $10 million, far below the $37 million new-build figure often associated with the Plaza concept.

That leaves a practical question many households understand immediately:

Why approve a much larger permanent tax first if a lower-cost modernization option may exist?

Before asking seniors, renters, families, and fixed-income homeowners to absorb new taxes, the city should clearly compare:

Current site renovation costs
New Plaza construction costs
Parking impacts
Ownership and land control issues
Construction timeline risks
Operating costs after opening
What happens if TOD timelines slip

Trust Is Earned Through Straight Answers

El Cerrito residents are not asking for perfection.

They are asking for honesty.

If Plaza has been the preferred plan for years, acknowledge it.

If there are truly five viable locations, publish side-by-side facts for all five.

If renovation is inferior, prove it with transparent numbers.

If the tax is the only path, explain why less expensive alternatives are not enough.

This Vote Is About More Than a Library

It is about governance.

When messaging changes but the paper trail remains, people naturally become skeptical.

When officials ask for trust while withholding clear comparisons, confidence declines.

And when voters sense they are being managed rather than informed, they begin asking harder questions.

That is not cynicism.

That is citizenship.

Reprint

El Cerrito voters are once again being asked to open their wallets. But this moment doesn’t exist in isolation. It sits on top of years of tax measures, rising costs, and growing concern that the City’s financial challenges aren’t being fixed—just funded. For many property owners, this isn’t about a single ballot measure anymore. It’s about fatigue.

The Last Five Tax Measures: A Pattern, Not an Exception

Over the past decade, El Cerrito residents have been asked repeatedly to approve new or extended taxes. While each measure has had its own justification, the cumulative effect matters. Here’s the pattern property owners are experiencing—now with the real financial impact:

• Utility Users Tax (UUT) – Currently set at 10% on utilities (electric, gas, water, telecom). Extended and increased to support general city services, this tax quietly grows alongside every monthly bill.
• Parcel Taxes – Flat taxes applied per parcel, regardless of income. While individual measures may seem modest (often $100–$300+ per parcel annually), layered over time they create a cumulative, ongoing burden.
• Sales Tax Measures – El Cerrito’s combined sales tax rate is now approximately 10.25%, placing it among the higher rates in the region and increasing the cost of everyday goods and services.
• Real Property Transfer Tax (RPPT) – Increased to approximately $12 per $1,000 of property value, meaning a $1 million sale can trigger roughly $12,000 in transfer taxes—a significant cost that directly impacts property owners, investors, and housing turnover.
• Proposed Library Parcel Tax (Measure C, 2026) – Proposed at approximately $0.17 per square foot of building space annually, with automatic annual increases tied to inflation and a duration exceeding 30 years. For many homeowners, this translates into hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year.

Individually, each measure may have sounded reasonable. Together, they tell a different story: a steady and compounding reliance on taxpayers to close financial gaps.

This Isn’t Just About Revenue—It’s About Trust

What’s driving the pushback isn’t just the cost. It’s the growing perception that the City’s challenges are structural and unresolved. Critics, including residents and local voices, are raising consistent concerns:

Mismanagement and “Bailout” Concerns

• A belief that the City is relying on new taxes instead of fixing underlying issues
• Concerns about high labor costs and excessive overtime
• Questions about whether the City has adapted to changing service demands post-pandemic
• Concerns that the City may be operating with higher staffing levels per capita than peer cities, without clear evidence of better outcomes

More Money—But What Changes?

One of the most consistent frustrations is this: Where are the results? Opponents argue that new tax revenue is not translating into visible improvements:

• No clear performance metrics for service delivery
• Ongoing concerns about cleanliness, safety, and responsiveness
• Limited transparency on how funds improve day-to-day resident experience

Instead, many believe the funds are being used to cover operational deficits, address rising pension and labor costs, and maintain the status quo. That’s a difficult sell to taxpayers who are being asked to commit to 30+ years of additional taxes.

The Tipping Point: Tax Fatigue Is Real

El Cerrito doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Across the Bay Area, residents are already facing sales tax rates approaching or exceeding 10–11% in some regions, rising housing costs, increased utility and service fees, and higher transaction costs due to the Real Property Transfer Tax, which directly impacts homeowners and investors when properties change hands. At some point, taxpayers begin to ask a simple question: How much is enough? For many, that point has already been reached.

The “Washington Monument” Strategy

Another concern being raised is how these measures are being presented. Residents describe a familiar pattern: warnings of service cuts, layoffs, or declining quality if the measure fails, and framing the vote as a choice between funding or failure. This approach—often called the Washington Monument Strategy—relies on highlighting the most visible or valued services to create urgency. But critics argue that these “doomsday” scenarios are often exaggerated—and designed to pressure voters rather than inform them.

What Opponents Are Actually Asking For

This isn’t simply opposition for the sake of it. Many critics are calling for specific, concrete changes:

1. Structural Reform

Address the root causes of financial imbalance; labor costs, staffing levels, and long-term obligations.

2. Operational Accountability

Implement performance standards and benchmarking against similar cities.

3. Efficiency Before Expansion

Demonstrate that existing resources are being used effectively before asking for more.

4. Leadership Accountability

Some argue that leadership—not taxpayers—should bear responsibility for persistent financial challenges.

A Growing Divide

The opposition isn’t limited to one group. It includes business owners concerned about economic competitiveness, residents frustrated by rising costs and unclear outcomes, and taxpayer advocates questioning long-term sustainability. Across public forums—community meetings, social platforms, and local discussions—the same themes keep emerging: High costs. Unclear results. Another tax.

The Bottom Line

El Cerrito property owners are not inherently opposed to investing in their community. But they are increasingly asking for something in return: Clarity. Accountability. Results. Without that, each new tax measure doesn’t feel like progress. It feels like more of the same. And that’s what tax fatigue really is—not resistance to investment, but a loss of confidence that the investment will actually solve the problem.

El Cerrito residents are watching something familiar unfold: a polished political campaign built on messaging tactics, carefully crafted flyers, glossy mailers, and talking points that sound persuasive until you stop and ask a simple question.

What does any of it actually mean?

The Yes on C campaign appears to have embraced a professional political playbook, with strategist Lisa Tucker reportedly involved in shaping communications. That may explain the tone of the campaign materials. They are heavy on slogans, emotional appeals, and polished language. But when voters look for clear answers, specifics often disappear.

This is not a statewide race. This is El Cerrito. Neighbors deserve facts, not campaign theater.

The Mailers Look Slick. The Math Is Missing

Voters keep hearing that opponents are exaggerating the cost of the initiative. That is a serious accusation.

So where is the campaign’s math? Where

If critics are wrong, then show the numbers. Show the assumptions. Show the tax impact by parcel type. Show the total borrowing costs if financing is involved. Show how long residents will pay. Show what happens if construction bids come in higher.

Instead, residents are often met with dismissive language, personal attacks and broad reassurances.

That is not transparency. That is messaging.

Five Scenarios? Then Why Does the Price Tag Match the Plaza Plan?

Supporters often claim there are multiple possible locations or five scenarios still in play.

But many residents are asking an obvious question:

If there are truly five open scenarios, why does the $37 million price tag tied to the tax initiative match the publicly discussed cost of a new library at El Cerrito Plaza?

That question deserves a direct answer.

Because from the outside, it appears voters are being asked to approve funding for a project whose likely direction is already known, while being told everything remains flexible.

If that is not the case, explain it clearly.

Nextdoor Is Not a Substitute for Public Accountability

The same campaign style has shown up on Nextdoor: repeat the talking points, minimize concerns, accuse skeptics of misinformation, and avoid detailed answers.

But El Cerrito residents are not passive consumers of campaign copy. They are homeowners, renters, taxpayers, parents, seniors, and professionals. Many know budgets. Many understand debt. Many can recognize when language is being used to blur rather than clarify.

And increasingly, that playbook does not appear to be working.

When residents ask for numbers, they should get numbers.

When residents ask for location clarity, they should get clarity.

When residents ask about alternatives, they should get honest comparisons.

This Vote Should Be About Substance

No one is against libraries. No one is against civic investment. No one is against planning for the future.

But many are against being sold a vague narrative wrapped in consultant-grade language.

El Cerrito deserves a campaign willing to speak plainly:

What exactly are we paying for?
Where exactly will it go?
What exactly will it cost over time?
What alternatives were seriously considered?
Why should voters trust projections that are not fully explained?

Those are not anti-library questions.

They are pro-accountability questions.

El Cerrito Is Smart Enough for the Truth

Political strategy can help package a message. It cannot replace substance.

Glossy mailers fade. Nextdoor posts disappear. Talking points change.

But taxes remain. Debt remains. Decisions remain.

El Cerrito voters deserve more than jargon.

They deserve the truth

Peter Pan’s Nextdoor post reads less like an objective discussion about public safety and more like campaign messaging designed to help Mayor Gabe Quinto during election season.

The timing and framing are hard to ignore.

According to the post, Gabe Quinto and Carolyn Wysinger are portrayed as the only councilmembers protecting residents, while the other three councilmembers are blamed for supposedly making El Cerrito unsafe. That creates a simple political storyline: Gabe voted “yes,” therefore Gabe is the public safety candidate.

But governing is bigger than one symbolic vote.

Gabriel Quinto has been one of the longest-serving members of the City Council during a period when El Cerrito experienced significant fiscal decline, growing structural deficits, deferred maintenance concerns, and declining public confidence in city management. Those realities developed over many years, not over one camera vote.

Residents remember:

• El Cerrito being placed on the California State Auditor’s high-risk list
• Ongoing budget instability
• Increasing conversations about taxes and service cuts
• Complaints about infrastructure and responsiveness
• Expansion in management costs while residents are repeatedly asked for more revenue

That is the broader record voters are evaluating.

So when political supporters suddenly frame Gabe Quinto as the singular protector of public safety because of one vote, many residents are understandably skeptical.

The rhetoric in the post is also exaggerated. Claiming criminals will now come to El Cerrito “with impunity” because of a council vote is political fear messaging, not balanced public policy discussion. Public safety depends on far more than surveillance cameras alone.

And residents are smart enough to recognize when a narrative is being crafted for campaign purposes.

Quite honestly, it is difficult not to conclude that this vote is now being used as election material so supporters can later say:
Gabe Quinto voted to “protect public safety.”

That may work as a slogan.

But voters are also looking at the overall condition of the city after a decade of leadership decisions.

El Cerrito’s financial challenges did not begin with Donald Trump. They did not begin with changes in federal policy. And they are not primarily driven by reductions in federal funding.

That narrative may be politically convenient, but it is not supported by the city’s own financial structure.

At a recent meeting, Mayor Gabe Quinto stated:

“This was not created because of the city again this is created because of what’s happening on the federal level and the holes that they are making and the takeaways they are doing on social services and cuts on the federal level that is affecting the state level…”

The problem is that El Cerrito receives relatively little federal funding for its ongoing General Fund operations.

The city’s core revenue sources are local:

• Property taxes
• Sales taxes
• Utility users taxes
• Fees and permits
• Local assessments and charges

This is not a city dependent on Washington for day-to-day survival.

The issue is the same issue El Cerrito has faced for years: a structural imbalance between revenue growth and expense growth.

Expenses are rising faster than recurring revenue.

That is the problem.

And it is not a new problem.

The State Auditor previously identified El Cerrito as fiscally high risk because the city spent beyond its means, depleted reserves, and relied on short-term borrowing to manage cash flow. The city’s own financial history shows that these problems existed long before the current federal administration debates.

Councilmember William Ktsanes was correct when he pointed to employee costs as a major driver of the imbalance.

The largest expense category for nearly every California city is personnel:

• Salaries
• Pensions
• Health benefits
• Retiree obligations
• Staffing growth

El Cerrito is no exception.

In fact, prior operational analyses already indicated the city had staffing levels that exceeded operational necessity in several areas. Yet instead of slowing growth, city leadership expanded management positions, approved compensation increases, and continued building long-term obligations into the budget structure.

That is not a federal policy issue.

That is a local governance decision.

And residents have seen the consequences:

• Infrastructure deterioration despite dedicated taxes
• Growing deficits
• Midyear budget adjustments
• Pressure for new taxes
• Increasing concern about long-term sustainability

The city continues to frame these discussions as though outside forces are primarily responsible, but residents are increasingly asking harder questions:

• Why do expenses continue growing faster than revenue?
• Why were temporary windfalls treated like permanent money?
• Why did COVID-era surpluses not create lasting stability?
• Why are taxpayers repeatedly asked to close gaps without meaningful structural reform?

Over the past several years, El Cerrito benefited from extraordinary financial circumstances:

• Millions in federal ARPA funding
• Surging property tax revenue during the housing boom
• Increased sales tax collections
• Real property transfer tax growth
• Economic recovery funding

Those were temporary boosts.

But instead of fundamentally restructuring operations, the city expanded ongoing commitments.

Now that the temporary money is fading, the underlying imbalance is reappearing.

Again.

None of this means federal and state decisions have zero impact on cities. Of course they do. Economic conditions, inflation, and statewide cost pressures affect everyone.

But suggesting that El Cerrito’s financial condition was “created” by federal actions ignores years of local financial decisions that contributed directly to where the city stands today.

Fiscal responsibility requires honesty.

And honest conversations begin with acknowledging that El Cerrito’s challenges are largely homegrown.

Measure C supporters continue to promote a long list of endorsements as though names alone should settle the issue. But El Cerrito voters should look deeper and ask two straightforward questions:

Were these leaders part of the era when El Cerrito’s finances deteriorated?

And do they fully understand what they are endorsing now?

Those are fair questions when taxpayers are being asked for more money.

The Warning Signs Started Years Before the State Auditor

El Cerrito’s financial troubles did not begin with the California State Auditor report. Many of these endorsers served on the council during the decline.

The warning signs were visible as early as 2017, when the city was already facing serious fiscal strain. Then came a going concern warning in 2018, followed by another warning afterward.

A going concern warning is serious. It means auditors see reason to question whether an organization can continue financially without meaningful corrective action.

Later, the California State Auditor described El Cerrito’s condition in stark terms, citing excessive spending, inadequate corrective action, weak financial management, and risks to ongoing fiscal viability.

During council member Lyman’s, council member Quinto’s, and City Manager Pinkos’ reign, the City of El Cerrito was designated the seventh most financially at-risk city among over 470 California cities.

These same people are asking for our trust with over $37 million in additional dollars.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/These-Bay-Area-cities-are-in-financial-trouble-14559867.php

The high-risk designation only applies to the bottom 3% of 400+ California cities.

Let that sink in.

El Cerrito is off the highest risk list and still in the bottom 10% of over 400 cities. Despite this, leaders claim financial stability.

The Names on the Endorsement List Matter

The endorsement list includes current and former El Cerrito officials such as:

• Gabe Quinto
• Rebecca Saltzman
• Lisa Motoyama
• Carolyn Wysinger
• Greg Lyman
• Paul Fadelli
• Mark Friedman
• Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto
• Tessa Rudnick
• Rich Bartke

It also includes outside elected officials such as:

• John Gioia
• Jesse Arreguín
• Betty Yee
• Buffy Wicks

Voters are entitled to ask what exactly each of these endorsers knows about the measure, its costs, its alternatives, and El Cerrito’s financial history.

Rebecca Saltzman and Carolyn Wysinger

Rebecca Saltzman and Carolyn Wysinger joined the council later than some of the earlier officials tied to prior fiscal decline. That distinction is fair to acknowledge.

However, since joining city leadership, they have not established a clear record of advancing consistently fiscally responsible initiatives or supporting a durable balance between ongoing revenues and ongoing expenses.

That matters because sustainable governance is not only about raising revenue. It is about aligning spending, priorities, and long-term obligations with what taxpayers can realistically support.

Residents Have Seen the Impact

Fiscal irresponsibility is not abstract. It affects daily life.

When finances weaken, service delivery weakens too.

Residents experience it through:

• deferred maintenance
• growing infrastructure needs
• pressure on city services
• repeated tax requests
• uncertainty about priorities
• excessive unfunded pension debt

Prior Taxes Did Not End the Problems

El Cerrito voters have heard promises before.

We had a pool tax, yet reserves still had to be tapped for pool repairs.

We had a road tax, yet pavement condition scores reportedly fell from the mid-80s into the 60s.

That naturally raises a question:

If earlier dedicated taxes did not fully solve the promised problems, why should voters approve another blank check now?

John Gioia Raises a Bigger Concern

At a recent event, John Gioia appeared unfamiliar with important details of the initiative when asked about it. That matters because he is being presented as a trusted validator of the proposal. If one prominent endorser seemed unclear on the basics, voters are justified in asking:

How many others endorsed first and studied later?

An endorsement without understanding is not leadership. It is politics.

What Responsible Leadership Looks Like

Before asking taxpayers for more money, city leaders should provide:

• a final and transparent plan
• clear project costs
• honest discussion of alternatives
• measurable accountability
• explanation of past tax outcomes
• proof mistakes will not be repeated
• a credible path to structural balance between revenues and expenses

Instead, residents are too often hearing:

Approve now. Details later.

The Bottom Line

This election should not be decided by a flyer full of names.

It should be decided by competence, transparency, fiscal discipline, and results.

El Cerrito has already lived through years of warning signs, weakened finances, and repeated asks.

So voters are right to ask:

Can we trust the people asking for more money when the city still lacks a proven culture of balanced, responsible financial stewardship?

El Cerrito voters have received another polished, professionally designed mailer from the Yes campaign. It is glossy, confident, and filled with myths and facts, messaging meant to reassure residents. But once voters look past the slick presentation, the bigger issue becomes clear: major details are still missing, and some of the real impacts are barely acknowledged.

This campaign continues to rely on careful wording, selective framing, and trust us later promises instead of giving voters direct answers.

The Tax Increase Distinction Matters

One of the mailer’s claims is that saying the Council will raise the tax every year is a myth. Their explanation is that the measure authorizes increases but does not require them.

That is not the same thing.

The real question is whether the Council can raise the tax annually. The answer is yes. Voters deserve to understand that authority exists, even if officials say they may choose not to use it.

The mailer also notes the tax can rise to 115 percent of the amount required. Residents should reasonably ask why a measure promoted as precise and necessary includes room for an additional 15 percent.

The Exemption Story Leaves Out Too Much

The mailer claims the measure provides exemptions for low-income seniors. That sounds reassuring, but it leaves out key realities.

The Council has not committed to a fully funded local exemption program or presented a clear path forward now. Instead, voters are being asked to approve the tax first and sort out the relief later.

There are also two groups largely left out of this discussion.

First, relief should not be limited only to low-income seniors. The city should be thinking about all low-income residents. Financial hardship does not begin at a certain age. Working families, disabled residents, unemployed residents, and others struggling to stay in El Cerrito deserve consideration too.

Second, businesses are not mentioned in this conversation, yet they will also be required to pay this tax.

Businesses Will Pay Significant Costs

Because this parcel tax is based on square footage, larger commercial properties could face very large annual bills.

That means businesses such as the storage facility, the Honda dealership, and other larger sites could pay tens of thousands of dollars, even in the short run.

Those costs do not simply disappear. They can affect pricing, rents, hiring, investment decisions, and expansion plans. In a city that says it wants economic vitality, adding substantial costs to local employers should be openly discussed.

Instead, the campaign messaging barely addresses it.

The Tax Starts Before the Library Exists

Another important fact remains unchanged: if approved, the tax begins before a new library is built.

Residents and businesses start paying first, while planning, financing, design, and construction could take years.

There is no immediate new library in exchange for the immediate tax burden.

That timing matters for households on fixed incomes, working families, and businesses already dealing with high costs.

Opposing This Measure Is Not Anti Library

The Yes campaign often tries to frame opponents as anti-library or anti-progress.

That is false, and no matter how many times they repeat it, it remains false.

Many residents support improving library service. What they oppose is this particular measure and this expensive path.

A lower-cost alternative has been publicly discussed before: refurbishing and retrofitting the existing library site at a much lower estimated cost, often cited around $10 million, compared with the roughly $37 million concept tied to the new project discussion.

That is not anti-library.

That is pro affordability, pro accountability, and pro common sense.

What Voters Should Ask

Before approving a long-term parcel tax, voters should ask:

Why are all low-income residents not central to the relief discussion?

Why are business impacts not mentioned?

Why does the tax begin now while the project may take years?

Why are voters being asked to trust future councils to solve the details later?

Why should we vote for a 17-cent tax when a 6-cent tax would be sufficient?

The Real Choice

This election is not about whether El Cerrito values libraries.

It is about whether residents want to approve a 17 cent parcel tax now, with unanswered questions and future promises, or send City Hall back to develop a more practical, affordable, and transparent plan.

Voters deserve substance, not just slick mailers.

El Cerrito residents are being told this new parcel tax is a citizen initiative. But the more facts that emerge, the harder that label is to believe.

The campaign is being led by former mayor Greg Lyman. Even more notably, Greg Lyman reportedly helped write the initiative itself alongside Sky Woodruff.

That is a remarkable detail.

When a former mayor and the sitting city attorney are involved in drafting a measure, residents have every reason to question whether this is truly a grassroots community effort or a professionally engineered political project.

This is not just about appearances. It is about trust, transparency, and honesty with voters.

If the measure was shaped by insiders with deep institutional knowledge and government influence, then calling it a citizen initiative risks misleading the public. A real citizen initiative typically begins with ordinary residents organizing independently, not former elected officials and city leadership helping structure the proposal.

History also matters. Greg Lyman was part of the leadership era that many residents associate with El Cerrito’s serious fiscal decline and near-bankruptcy concerns. Now taxpayers are again being asked to approve more revenue under the guidance of familiar names.

The money trail raises additional questions.

Former mayor Paul Fadelli reportedly donated $5,000.

Current mayor Gabe Quinto donated $250.

Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman donated $250. She is also a former BART director who has committed housing.

And 56% of donations reportedly came from people who do not live in El Cerrito.

So residents should ask:

Who wrote this measure?
Who is funding this campaign?
Who is promoting it?
Who benefits from it?

Because if insiders drafted it, insiders funded it, and insiders are selling it, then voters deserve the truth.

This does not look like a citizen initiative.

It looks like an insider operation wearing a citizen mask.

El Cerrito voters deserve candor, not choreography.

City officials are publicly discussing a projected structural deficit of $1.7 million while also highlighting possible service cuts such as reducing six city funded library hours per week to save about $100,000 annually.

But many residents know the story may be larger than the headline number.

Historically, El Cerrito’s June budget process has not always included every anticipated expense item upfront. Additional costs that leaders were aware of in June have often surfaced later in the fiscal year through winter updates, amendments, and returning agenda items. That pattern can make the initial budget gap appear smaller than the eventual reality.

The true operating shortfall is likely far closer to $3 million to $4 million than the currently discussed $1.7 million figure.

That distinction matters.

Because if the city’s actual challenge is several million dollars, then cutting library hours to save $100,000 is not a meaningful fiscal solution. It is a symbolic gesture.

And symbolic gestures reveal priorities.

If the first answer to a multimillion dollar problem is to reduce hours at a beloved public library for relatively minor savings, many residents may conclude the city does not truly prioritize library service. Instead, it appears more focused on the larger transit oriented development vision tied to the proposed new library location and surrounding redevelopment goals.

That is an important civic distinction.

Supporting a library means protecting access, hours, programming, and reliable service today. Supporting transit oriented development is a broader land use and economic strategy. Those are not automatically the same thing.

Many voters may reasonably ask whether the library is being treated as a community institution or as an anchor project for a development agenda.

Library hours are highly visible and emotionally important. Families use the library. Students rely on it. Seniors value it. Working residents depend on access to computers, books, and programs.

So when library hours are placed on the chopping block, it creates anxiety and urgency.

That is why many residents may see this as theater.

The message can feel obvious. Approve the new tax, approve the new project, or risk losing valued services. But if city leaders were truly solving a structural budget problem, the conversation would focus on deeper reforms:

• Long term spending discipline
• Operational efficiencies
• Staffing and service alignment
• Contract review
• Priority based budgeting
• Realistic multiyear forecasting
• Transparent accounting of all known costs

Instead, the public is asked to focus on six library hours.

And residents should remember this is not the first time library hours have appeared in budget politics. Similar reductions were proposed in prior years before public opposition pushed leaders to reverse course.

That history raises an uncomfortable question.

Are library hours being targeted because they solve the problem, or because they are useful leverage in a campaign for a new project and higher taxes?

El Cerrito residents can strongly support libraries while still demanding honest math.

They can value public services while rejecting scare tactics.

They can want civic improvements while insisting that leaders first demonstrate sound financial stewardship.

Before voters approve decades of new taxes or expensive new commitments, they should ask clear questions:

• What known expenses are missing from the June budget?
• How much was added later in prior years?
• What is the realistic total deficit once all costs are included?
• Why are symbolic cuts being emphasized over structural solutions?
• Is the priority library service, or development strategy?

Budgets are moral documents, but they are also mathematical ones.

If the true gap is millions larger than advertised, then cutting library hours is not a plan.

It is a performance.

You’ve just received your voter information guide. El Cerrito voters are being asked to trust the City Attorney’s “Impartial Analysis” of Measure C. But before residents accept that label at face value, they should ask a simple and reasonable question:

Can a person who has advised the same city for roughly a decade truly be viewed as independent on a tax measure the city wants approved?

That question is not personal. It is about public confidence, institutional relationships, and common sense.

A Decade of Ties Matters

Sky Woodruff has served as El Cerrito’s City Attorney for at least ten years, with public records showing him in the role since at least 2016.

That means for roughly a decade he has been paid to represent the city, advise its leadership, help navigate legal matters, and work alongside councils and senior staff through changing political priorities.

Long tenure creates familiarity. It creates loyalty. It creates relationships. It can also create financial dependence on continuing municipal contracts.

Even if someone acts professionally, voters are entitled to recognize that this is not the same as bringing in a fresh, outside, independent voice.

His Professional Background Also Matters

According to publicly available professional biographies, Woodruff has spent more than twenty years advising local governments on elections, taxes, fees, assessments, and ballot measures. Those same materials describe experience helping cities and agencies enhance revenues and defend existing revenues from legal challenge.

That is an important context.

When the author of an “impartial” analysis has built part of a career helping governments structure and preserve revenue measures, voters may reasonably wonder whether they are reading a neutral explanation or the work of someone institutionally aligned with municipal taxation tools.

Again, that is not an accusation. It is a credibility question.

What the Measure C Analysis Softens or Leaves Out

The official analysis explains legal mechanics, but it does not fully emphasize several practical concerns many taxpayers care about.

1. This Is a Long-Term Tax Commitment

The measure allows taxes to continue for 30 years after the initial issuance of bonds.

That is not temporary. That is a generation-long obligation.

2. Taxes May Increase Over Time

The measure permits annual adjustments tied to inflation or income indexes.

Plain English: taxpayers could pay more over time.

3. Funds Are Not Limited to Construction

Revenue may be used for planning, permitting, environmental review, furnishing, financing costs, and operating costs for the new library’s first ten years.

Many residents hearing “library tax” may assume the money is mostly for building construction. The permitted uses are much broader.

4. Lower-Cost Alternatives Are Not Centered

Many residents are aware of discussion around lower-cost renovation or retrofit options for the existing library site.

Yet the official analysis does not frame the vote as a choice between expensive new construction and potentially less costly alternatives.

That omission matters because cost comparisons are central to how many people decide.

5. Oversight Is Not the Same as Control

The report references audits and a citizen oversight board.

But oversight boards typically review spending after the fact. They do not necessarily decide project scope, halt overruns, or reduce taxes if plans change.

Why Independence Is So Important

Government has every right to advocate for its priorities. Voters have every right to hear that advocacy.

But an “impartial analysis” should be something different. It should come from a source the public can trust as detached, balanced, and free from longstanding institutional loyalties.

When the analysis comes from a longtime insider with a decade of ties to the city and a professional background steeped in municipal revenue measures, skepticism is natural.

That skepticism is not cynicism.

It is exactly how informed voters should think.

Questions Voters Should Ask Before Voting

• What is the full cost to taxpayers over 30 years?
• How much could annual increases add over time?
• How much can be spent before construction begins?
• What lower-cost options were seriously considered?
• Why was the city’s longtime attorney the one certifying neutrality?
• Would an outside independent analyst have presented the tradeoffs differently?

Final Thought

Impartiality is not created by printing the word at the top of a page.

It is earned through independence and public trust.

And when the person writing that “impartial” report has advised the same city for a decade and built a career around helping municipalities with revenue measures, El Cerrito voters are justified in asking whether they received neutral guidance or simply a polished insider case for Measure C.

‘s

We watched the forum last night on Measure C, and after hearing both sides directly, our conclusion became even clearer: Still a NO for us.

The reason is simple. One side relied heavily on urgency, trust us messaging, and emotional appeals. The other side brought facts, history, numbers, and legitimate questions that still have not been answered.

The Case for Yes Sounded Thin

Former council member Greg Lyman spoke in favor of the measure, but there were no convincing new facts that justified the scale of this tax.

Instead, the message seemed to come down to:

• We need to act now
• Trust city leadership
• Pass the measure first and decisions can come later
• If we do not pass it, something bad may happen

That is not the level of rigor residents should expect before approving a new long-term tax.

Voters deserve specifics, not pressure.

The Case Against Was Rooted in Facts

Wally Nowinski offered a much stronger presentation because it relied on evidence rather than slogans.

He cited prior city failures, historical patterns, and comparable library funding statistics showing that Measure C appears to be an expensive outlier when compared with other communities.

That matters because El Cerrito residents are not simply being asked to support a library. They are being asked to support one of the costliest approaches.

The $37 Million vs. $10.3 Million Problem

Perhaps the most important issue remains unanswered.

Why are voters being asked to approve a tax tied to a $37 million concept when the City has acknowledged the existing library site could be refurbished for $10.3 million?

That is a staggering difference.

If the current site can be modernized safely and responsibly for far less, why was that not the primary plan from the start?

Why should taxpayers approve a premium-priced option first and sort out details later?

These are common-sense questions, and no persuasive answer was given.

Who Really Benefits?

Another concern raised during the forum is whether this measure is less about library necessity and more about supporting a broader transit-oriented development agenda near El Cerrito Plaza BART Station.

Residents should ask whether taxpayers are being used to subsidize a larger development vision that primarily benefits outside interests and future developers.

If so, that should have been stated openly from day one.

Fear Should Not Replace Planning

Any campaign that suggests residents must vote yes immediately or risk catastrophe usually has a weak case.

Strong public proposals succeed through:

• transparent planning
• honest cost comparisons
• clearly stated benefits
• public trust
• accountability mechanisms

Measure C still feels like an incomplete plan asking for complete funding.

Our Conclusion

We support libraries. We support public investment when it is thoughtful, efficient, and honest.

But we do not support paying $37 million prices when a $10.3 million option exists.

We do not support vague promises over clear plans.

And we do not support asking voters for trust when the numbers raise so many doubts.

After watching the forum last night, our position did not weaken.

It strengthened.

Still a NO on Measure C.

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 boosters often go out of their way to get posts removed from NEXTDOOR when they don’t like what residents are saying. Sometimes the complaint is that a post is spam. Sometimes it is framed as shaming. Sometimes it is simply mass-reporting viewpoints they disagree with. But the pattern feels familiar: if they cannot answer criticism, they try to erase it.

Recently, a resident reposted a message that had reportedly been marked as spam because they believed it contained information the community needed to see. The post centered on Measure C and argued that voters are being asked to approve a long-term tax commitment without receiving clear, direct answers to basic questions.

The resident’s message raised six major concerns.

1. You’re Being Asked to Pay Forever

The poster argued that something was wrong the moment city officials began discussing “legally defensible interpretations” of the petition language instead of plainly explaining what voters were approving. To many residents, legal phrasing does not build trust. It raises doubts.

2. The Cost Keeps Changing

According to the post, residents were previously told a Plaza Station library could cost about $21 million and save $10 million compared with a standalone project. But after signatures were certified, the estimate reportedly jumped to $37 million while acknowledging that a remodel of the existing library costs just $10 million

That leaves a reasonable question: what changed, and why were residents not told sooner?

3. Is the Current Library Too Small or Adequate?

For years, some residents were told the current library site was too small to meet community needs. Now, discussions have suggested it may be workable after all.

If both statements have been made, voters deserve clarity. Which is true?

4. What Happens After Ten Years of Operating Costs?

The post claimed the city says operating expenses would be covered for ten years. If accurate, the obvious follow-up is simple:

What happens in year eleven?

A project plan should not stop where the harder questions begin.

5. The Senior Exemption May Exist More on Paper Than in Practice

The resident also challenged claims about a low-income senior exemption, asserting that despite similar measures in the past, no residents have successfully qualified.

If exemptions are being used as a selling point, the public deserves transparent data on how often they have actually worked.

6. Parking and Long-Term Taxes

The post also raised concerns that the proposed library concept has no dedicated parking plan and that tax collection would begin years before construction is completed.

That means residents could start paying long before seeing results.

The Bigger Issue: Why Silence Critics?

Even those who support Measure C should be concerned when criticism is removed instead of answered.

Healthy communities debate.

Confident leaders explain.

Strong measures survive scrutiny.

But when dissent is flagged, hidden, or shouted down, it sends the opposite message: that the case for the measure may be weaker than advertised.

El Cerrito Residents Deserve Better

Whether someone supports Measure C or opposes it, voters deserve facts, timelines, financial transparency, and honest answers.

Trying to delete criticism from NEXTDOOR does not solve unanswered questions.

It only creates one more.

Trying to justify the lack of parking at the proposed library in El Cerrito Plaza. A recent suggestion making the rounds is that residents could simply ride Bay Area Rapid Transit from El Cerrito del Norte station to El Cerrito Plaza to access a new library.

On paper, it sounds convenient. In practice, it raises a much bigger question: who is actually doing this?

Illustration credit — Next Door Post

The Reality of Cost and Time

A short BART trip between Del Norte and Plaza isn’t free. Fares are typically in the range of a couple of dollars each way. Add in wait times—often 10–20 minutes depending on the schedule—and what was supposed to be a quick library visit becomes a coordinated transit trip.

That might make sense for a regional commute. It doesn’t make sense for checking out a book, attending a children’s program, or studying for an hour.

How Residents Actually Get Around

Very few residents use BART to travel within El Cerrito. It’s designed for regional movement across the Bay Area, not short local trips between neighborhoods. Most people walk, drive, bike, or take short local routes.

Suggesting BART as the primary way to access a neighborhood library ignores how people actually live day to day.

Convenience Matters

Libraries work best when they are easy to reach. The current location has proven that. It’s familiar, accessible, and integrated into the community.

Who is realistically choosing to go through a train station, wait on a platform, and ride a train just to visit a library?

A More Practical Path Forward

There’s another option that deserves serious consideration: rebuild and expand at the current site. That approach:

• Preserves a location residents already use
• Avoids unnecessary transit barriers
• Can be delivered faster and at a lower cost. City estimates say $10 million
• Keeps the library embedded in the neighborhood it serves

The Bigger Concern

This isn’t just about location. It’s also about the funding structure.

A parcel tax that starts at a set amount but increases every year with inflation and stays on property tax bills indefinitely is a long-term commitment. Residents should fully understand that before voting.

The Bottom Line

Everyone supports libraries. The question is how to deliver one that is accessible, practical, and financially responsible.

Relying on BART for everyday library access isn’t realistic for most residents. A well-designed, expanded library at its current location is.

That’s the conversation worth having.

A concerned citizen recently laid out a simple question: when El Cerrito asks residents to approve a tax for a specific purpose, does the money actually get used that way?

The answer, based on years of public records, is not reassuring.

The Street Tax That Didn’t Fix the Streets

In 2008, voters approved a permanent half-cent sales tax to fix and maintain streets. Since then, roughly $26 million has been collected.

Yet today, road conditions are worse than they were nearly a decade ago. The city’s Pavement Condition Index has dropped significantly, with streets slipping from Good to the lower end of Fair, and a growing share now classified as Poor or Failed.

Even more concerning is how the money has been used.

In FY2025, the city budgeted $3.1 million for street repairs from this fund. It spent just $268,000—about nine cents on the dollar. That is not a one-year anomaly. It reflects a pattern.

The original promise was clear: no administrative salaries would be charged to the fund. Over time, that changed. Staff costs were billed to it. Even COVID-related administrative leave was charged against a fund voters believed was for fixing roads.

Oversight weakened too. A committee that was supposed to review spending shifted its own rules—from requiring members to review source documents like invoices to simply allowing it. Meetings saw no public attendance. Transparency became optional.

This is not just about deteriorating pavement. It is about a breakdown between what was promised and what was delivered.

The Pattern Extends Beyond Roads

This isn’t an isolated case.

Residents have seen similar dynamics with other revenue measures:

• The pool tax, where expectations and outcomes have not aligned
• The real property transfer tax under Measure V, where spending flexibility appears broader than many voters understood

Each time, the message to voters is clear and specific at the ballot box. Each time, the execution becomes more flexible after approval.

The Core Issue Isn’t Legality. It’s Trust.

To be fair, much of this spending may be legally permissible. Municipal finance rules often allow broad discretion once funds are collected, especially when language is not tightly constrained.

But legality is not the standard voters use when they make decisions. Trust is.

Voters are told their money will go to a defined purpose. They reasonably expect that purpose to be honored—not diluted, redirected, or absorbed into broader administrative uses.

When outcomes consistently diverge from expectations, the issue is no longer about a single program. It becomes systemic.

Now Comes Another Ask: A Parcel Tax

The city is once again asking residents to approve a new tax—this time a parcel tax.

The question voters should be asking is straightforward:

What has changed?

• What safeguards ensure funds will be used exactly as presented?
• What oversight mechanisms are truly independent and enforceable?
• What prevents the same pattern—broadening use, under-delivery, weakened oversight—from repeating?

When these guardrails are flexible, as history has shown us, this is not a question of supporting services. It is indicative of whether commitments will be kept.

Trust Is Earned Through Performance

Cities rely on public trust to function. That trust is built when promises are matched by outcomes, when oversight is real, and when transparency is not optional.

Right now, residents are being asked to trust again.

Given the record, it is reasonable to draw your own conclusions.