Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Housing, transit advocates decry $20 billion regional housing bond measure pulled from Bay Area ballot

By Leave a Comment

Photo source: Transform

Transform’s leader calls it “a tragic missed opportunity” and “major setback for our climate and transportation goals”; labels opponents who successfully challenged measure, “extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists”

“RM4 barely polled 54% before we even had a chance to open our mouths about it. Are 46% of the citizens of the Bay Area ‘extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists’?” – 20 Billion Reasons campaign opposition leader Gus Mattammal

By Allen D. Payton

In an email to supporters and an announcement this week, Jenn Guitart, Executive Director of Transform decried the removal of the $20 billion Bay Area housing measure from the November ballot and demonized those who successfully challenged it. According to polling commissioned by the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority which placed the measure on the ballot, they found that only 54% of likely voters supported the bond. That’s much lower than the 66.7% support of voters required for it to pass. (See related articles here and here)  CCH: (See related articles here and here)

Labeled “What It Means for Our Movement” Guitart’s email and identical announcement on the Transform’s website read:

On Wednesday morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) unanimously voted to remove Regional Measure 4 from the 2024 ballot. The measure would have raised $20 billion to alleviate the Bay Area’s housing and homelessness crisis. Unfortunately, the measure was scuttled in response to a series of eleventh-hour challenges by extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists. This is a tragic missed opportunity for voters to say yes to urgently needed affordable housing and homelessness funding.

This decision is heartbreaking for Transform and other housing advocates, and, more importantly, for the hundreds of thousands of people in our region who now must wait longer for the affordable housing and homelessness solutions Bay Area residents need and deserve.

The decision is also a major setback for our climate and transportation goals. By funding the construction of over 40,000 new affordable homes near transit, the measure would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over three million tons and spurred an additional five million transit trips per year.

While it is frustrating that a well-resourced group of naysayers halted progress on housing and homelessness this election, Transform and our partners will continue to build the necessary power to win big on these critical issues.

Looking Forward

All is not lost in the fight for affordable housing. Transform and our partners will be working hard to pass Prop 5 this November, which will lower the voter approval threshold for housing and public infrastructure bond measures (from a two-thirds vote) to 55%. This measure is critical to advancing future affordable housing bond measures across the state.

Beyond November, our region continues to face significant challenges, from the housing and homelessness crisis to a looming transit fiscal cliff. New regional funding measures for both transportation and affordable housing are urgently needed. Passing both measures in the coming years will take unprecedented collaboration, creativity, and courage.

Transform will play a leading role in both these efforts as we continue our work to empower communities of color, innovate solutions, and advocate for policies and funding — all with the aim of helping people thrive and averting climate disaster. And we will need supporters like you in this fight to build up the necessary resources, political will, and movement organizing to beat the anti-taxers in future election cycles.

In the meantime, get ready to vote yes on Prop 5 in November, and stay tuned for future calls to action in the fight for housing, transportation, and climate justice for our region.

Transform Executive Asked Why She Demonized Measure’s Opponents

Guitart was asked why she would demonize the opponents to the measure when it only polled at 54% support prior to it being placed on the ballot, which is much lower than the 2/3rds vote currently required and also less than the 55% threshold required for a future vote should Prop 5 pass. She was also asked if she’s claiming 46% of the public who opposed it in the poll are also “extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists” and isn’t she risking angering those who opposed the measure from the start, some of whose support will be needed for passage of a future ballot measure.

Guitart was then asked with such a low level of support, shouldn’t the measure have been revised before it was placed on the ballot in order to address some of the concerns of the opposition to ensure a better possibility of it passing.

She was also asked instead wouldn’t it be better if Transform worked with the opponents to try and find common ground or a ballot measure that will be less anathema to them for a possible future vote or to achieve her organization’s goals

Finally, Guitart was asked if she is willing to offer a public apology to the measure’s opponents, revise her public statement removing the swipes at them and tone down the divisive rhetoric.

However, in response Guitart shared that she is unable to respond right now due to a family issue but wrote, “I will pass your concerns on to our team.”

Ballot Measure Opponent Leader Responds

When asked about the swipes at the opponents made by Transform’s executive director, Gus Mattammal, the leader of the opposition campaign, 20 Billion Reasons, responded, “I have a couple of responses to that characterization:

1) 20 Billion Reasons comprised Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents – the entire political spectrum. And to be clear, Democrats were about half the group.

2) Almost everyone in the group has willingly voted for tax increases before, so it’s silly to label folks as ‘anti-tax’. If someone comes to you with an idea for a pizza with pickles, sardines, and mayonnaise, and you say ‘um, no thanks!’, does that make you anti-pizza? Or are you just anti- “this particular idea for pizza”?

No one in this group is against well-constructed policies to alleviate housing unaffordability. Unfortunately, nothing about Regional Measure 4 was ‘well-constructed policy’.

3) RM4 barely polled 54% before we even had a chance to open our mouths about it, and the polling was destined to only go down from there. That means 46% of the voters were against this from the beginning. Are 46% of the citizens of the Bay Area ‘extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists’? I’m a registered Republican, and I feel like our fortunes as a party would be very different here in the Bay Area if that were true.”

About Transform

Founded in 1997 as Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition (BATLUC), according to the organization’s website, Transform works “with organizations, advocates, and community members for improved transportation and housing policies and funding. Together, we can invest in climate and equity, promote innovative transportation, support transportation shifts, and address climate-related housing issues.”

The group claims to have moved “the Overton window”, which is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies that says politicians can act only within the acceptable range, “steadily toward equity and climate resilience.”

They, “envision vibrant neighborhoods, transformed by excellent, sustainable mobility options and affordable housing, where those historically impacted by racist disinvestment now have power and voice.”

For more information about Transform visit www.TransFormCA.org or call (510) 740-3150.

Civil rights lawsuit filed against City of Antioch, Antioch Police, Contra Costa Child Protective Services claims neglect led to 2022 toddler’s beating death

By Leave a Comment

CONTENT WARNING: Information included may be disturbing to some individuals

Antioch childcare facility, Pittsburg pediatrician also named

Attorney says agencies “utterly failed in their duties” to protect 18-month-old girl abused by parents also named in suit

San Francisco, August 20, 2024 — A federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in the beating death of an 18-month-old child in Antioch, alleging that a litany of individuals and agencies charged with protecting the tiny girl utterly failed in their duties and led directly to her death as the result of trauma inflicted by her biological parents.

The case, filed last week in Federal District Court on behalf of the two older siblings of the toddler, names the following defendants as negligently responsible for her horrific death: the City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, Contra Costa Child Protective Services, Contra Costa County Regional Health Foundation, and a childcare facility, The Learning Center (actually named, The Learning Experience – see below), as well as the toddler’s biological parents, Jessika Fulcher and Worren Young, Sr.

The child was removed from her parent’s custody within weeks of her birth in February 2021 because she was in danger of neglect and abuse. Yet, over the next 16 months, the very people and institutions who were supposed to protect the toddler and her siblings failed to report obvious signs of abuse and/or failed to take action to prevent further trauma to the girl.

The child died August 26, 2022, from trauma so severe that it severed her pancreas and caused bleeding in her brain, according to doctors and the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, including punitive damages against the agencies and individuals named as responsible in the legal action.

“This child–who was still learning to walk–was brutally tortured and died a horrific death, all because the entire system that was supposed to protect her failed this innocent 18-month-old child,” said Brett Schreiber, attorney for the plaintiffs and partner at Singleton Schreiber law firm. “While her parents committed the physical abuse that killed her, their abuse was entirely enabled and abetted by social workers, police, hospitals and day care centers who should have stopped them.”

A juvenile court judge removed the toddler from the custody of her parents in March 2021, shortly after her birth.  When the child was born, both she and her mother had methamphetamines in their systems. In addition, both parents had outstanding warrants in Georgia. The children were placed in foster care.

Within weeks of the judge’s decision, however, Contra Costa County Child Protective Services (CPS) began a process intended to lead to reuniting the children with the parents, beginning with a “case plan” requiring close supervision of the parents. The case plan required the parents to submit to regular drug testing. The suit alleges that they missed half these mandated tests and failed many that they took.

A doctor at Pittsburg Health Center further noted injuries on the toddler, but neither the doctor nor the hospital notified CPS, and CPS never requested the hospital’s records.

Nonetheless, CPS soon allowed overnight visitations for the children with the parents, and by September 2021 enabled the parents to regain custody by concealing these and other facts from the judge.

The toddler returned to a household in turmoil, with Antioch police visiting the home at least three times in 2022. Yet the children remained in the home and no referral to CPS was made, even though the father was finally arrested for domestic violence and battery. The child’s daycare center, The Learning Center in Antioch, also alerted the mother regarding significant bruising on the toddler yet failed to make a mandated referral to CPS.

On August 25, 2022, Antioch Police Department officers and paramedics were called to the child’s home by her mother who reported that the girl was having trouble breathing. The girl was rushed to the hospital where doctors discovered she was the victim of severe, intentional injuries.

Her parents left the hospital during the night saying they were going out to smoke, but never returned. The girl died the following morning; a juvenile court hearing in April 2023 concluded that one or both parents were responsible for the fatal injuries.

“This was a complete dereliction of duty that resulted in the death of one young child and the lifelong loss and trauma for two others,” Schreiber said. “On behalf of those siblings, we are asking the court not only to compensate them for the life-long emotional scarring they will suffer, but also to punish those who failed to prevent this horrible tragedy so that it never happens again.”

Antioch City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington were asked on Tuesday afternoon if they had any comment about the lawsuit. Addington was also asked if lawsuits naming the police department are received by the chief or if they are handled by the city attorney’s office. Neither responded by publication time Wednesday evening.

Asked if the County had any comment on the lawsuit, Tish Gallegos, Community Relations and Media for the Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department responded, “The County has not been served with the lawsuit, therefore has no comment at this time.”

Asked whom at the County was served with the lawsuit, Sam Singer, of Singer Associates Public Relations representing Singleton Schreiber said, “I know the lawsuit was filed but it may not have been served, yet.”

The press release shows the case is O.Y., W.Y., and A.Y. v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Jessika Fulcher, Worren Young, Sr., Colleen Sullivan, Flynne Lewis, Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation, The Learning Center, Raji Ponnaluri, and Does 1 through 50, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Correction, Details Provided on Named Parties

However, the name of the business is actually, The Learning Experience.

Provided with that information and asked how Sullivan, Lewis and Ponnaluri are related to the lawsuit, Singer shared details from the lawsuit, including: “over the next year, from March 2021 to April 2022, during the pendency of the dependency action, CPS workers—Defendants in this action— abysmally failed to protect O.Y. and W.Y. Defendants Colleen Sullivan and Does 1-10, CPS employees, repeatedly misled and deceived the juvenile court. They represented that Defendant Parents were complying with the court’s orders documented in a ‘case plan,’ when, in fact, Defendant Parents were violating the terms of the case plan.”

Singer also shared, “defendant Flynne Lewis was a pediatrician practicing medicine at the Pittsburg Health Center who was responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of Decedent O.Y. and Plaintiff W.Y. Defendant Lewis and staff working at the Pittsburg Health Center noted and documented signs of abuse and neglect of O.Y., but failed to report such information to CPS or any law enforcement agency.”

Finally, Singer provided details about the correct name for the business and its owner which reads, “At all relevant times, Defendant The Learning Experience was a daycare center located at 4831 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531 which was owned and operated by Defendant Raji Ponnaluri.”

Singleton Schreiber is a client-centered law firm, specializing in mass torts/multi-district litigation, fire litigation, personal injury/wrongful death, civil rights, environmental law, and sexual abuse/trafficking. Over the last decade, the firm has recovered more than $2.5 billion for clients who have been harmed and sought justice. The firm also has the largest fire litigation practice in the country, having represented over 26,000 victims of wildfire, most notably serving plaintiffs in litigation related to the 2023 Maui wildfires, the Colorado Marshall wildfire, the Washington Gray wildfire, and others.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

New plan maps route for finishing Bay Trail

By Leave a Comment

Existing Bay Trail map (left), Bay Trail sign and Bay Trail Gaps map (right). Source: MTC

The Bay Trail Gap Closure Implementation Plan (BTGCIP) sets priorities for future work to complete the remaining 150 miles of the vision of a 500-mile trail network around the bay.

By MTC & ABAG staff

Staff from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) this summer released the Bay Trail Gap Closure Implementation Plan (BTGCIP) final report, which establishes prioritization criteria to rank the benefit of closing the remaining gaps in the San Francisco Bay Trail.

The vision for a complete Bay Trail is a total of 500 miles of trails that circle the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. To date, more than 350 miles have been completed.

The BTGCIP inventories the remaining gaps, identifies priorities and ranking of gaps for future investment, and develops cost estimates for closing those gaps.

A segment of the existing Bay Trail. Photo credit: Arup

A multi-year process, the BTGCIP featured engagement with a working group of more than 100 participants, with representation from all nine Bay Area counties. The working group included staff from cities, counties, state, federal, transit and advocacy organizations, as well as partnership with nine community-based organizations that engaged with members of the public in Equity Priority Communities.

The process reviewed the entire Bay Trail through the lens of these identified priorities:

  • Center Equity Priority Communities in building out future segments of the Bay Trail
  • Connect segments that create the longest continuous sections of trail
  • Connect job centers to housing
  • Increase access to transit-rich and connected communities
  • Improve access to parks and open space
  • Preserve the shoreline environment and access to the shoreline
  • Consider impacts of sea level rise in the coming decades

Project area map showing the existing and proposed locations of the Bay Trail and Connector Trails. Source: MTC BTGCIP

Project History

In 2005, MTC and the ABAG conducted an evaluation of the Bay Trail network, The San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study. This study identified gaps in the Bay Trail network, scored and prioritized them, developed cost estimates for future construction, and presented an overall timeframe for completion of the full 500-mile vision of the Bay Trail.

The purpose of the BTGCIP is to build upon the work from 2005 to identify and evaluate existing missing segments of Bay Trail (trail gaps) and prioritize their construction in the remaining build-out of the Bay Trail.

In this updated gap analysis study, a greater emphasis was placed on Equity Priority Community engagement and needs along with aligning the prioritization criteria with Plan Bay Area 2050.

Finally, the study updated cost estimates for closing gaps and conducted sea level rise analysis to begin the discussion about how certain segments of the Bay Trail may need to consider adaptation strategies in the future.

Source: MTC BTGICP

Engagement

The BTGCIP focused on working with the San Francisco Bay Trail Board and Steering Committee, partner agency stakeholders and the community to identify new criteria for prioritizing gap closures and assessing the projects identified to address existing gaps.

This process involved:

  1. A Working Group with agency staff and advocates from throughout the region. The working group had more than 100 participants – staff from cities, counties, state, federal, transit and advocacy organizations – with representation from all nine Bay Area counties.
  2. Paid partnerships with nine community-based organizations (CBOs) who work within and represent communities within Equity Priority Communities (EPCs). The CBO partners hosted nine public engagement events throughout the region with over 200 participants. Two events were held in Spanish, and Spanish translation was available at all events. The engagement events were held in many formats, including: bike rides, tabling at existing community events, zoom meetings, farm gatherings, dinners and picnics.

Existing and proposed locations of the Bay Trail and Connector Trails in Contra Costa County. Source: MTC

See Gap Closure Implementation Plan Prioritization Map – This map visualizes the existing Bay Trail network, the Bay Trail gaps symbolized by priority score, and the existing and proposed connector trails to the Bay Trail network.

See Bay Trail Fieldwork Review Map – This map visualizes the trail conditions data collected from a field review of all existing off-street Bay Trail segments (nearly 300 miles).

Staff Contact – Lily Brown, Associate Planner/Analyst ‐ Equitable and Active Transportation

Phone: 415-778-6721 Email: lbrown@bayareametro.gov

The Bay Trail is a joint project of the ABAG and MTC. To learn more click, here.

CA Attorney General announces settlement agreement with Rite Aid Corporation to continue providing pharmacy services statewide

By Leave a Comment

Company agrees to conditions resolving competitive impacts related to changes in ownership involving retail pharmacy outlets

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with Rite Aid Corporation (Rite Aid) operating as an injunction to enable him to review changes of ownership involving their retail pharmacy outlets statewide. Additionally, the settlement includes injunctive conditions that resolve competition-related concerns to ensure remaining Rite Aid pharmacies provide necessary medication and healthcare services to Californians, specifically those who may rely on Medi-Cal and Medicare, and protect workers at stores that are sold or closed. Today’s settlement reflects the Attorney General’s efforts to prevent the continued growth of pharmacy deserts, which disproportionately impact low-income individuals, the elderly, and people of color, all of whom are also patients of Rite Aid. The settlement was reached under Assembly Bill (AB) 853.

“Pharmacies are often the most accessible healthcare providers, offering vital services for the well-being of individuals and families. Without them in our communities, Californians could face significant barriers in managing chronic conditions, receiving timely medications, and accessing preventative care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, with AB 853 and conditions set by my office, Californians who rely on Rite Aid pharmacies can continue accessing their medications and essential healthcare services they need to live healthy and fulfilling lives.”

Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and began closing nearly 550 stores nationwide since October 2023. California experienced the closure of more than 100 stores statewide; however, approximately 71% of all stores in California have remained open throughout the bankruptcy and with one exception in San Diego, there were two or more competitive alternatives close by for the closed stores. This June, Rite Aid’s bankruptcy restructuring plan was approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, which turns over control of the company to a group of its lenders.

Under the settlement and AB 853, Rite Aid agrees to the following conditions for the next five years:

  • Use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain the remaining Rite Aid stores, as well as all required licenses.
  • Provide 90-day notice of sale or closure of remaining Rite Aid stores.
  • Continue participation in Medi-Cal and Medicare if commercially reasonable.
  • Provide financial assistance to patients if commercially reasonable to do so.
  • Continue free delivery services to patients who were receiving these services from a closed store in San Diego.
  • Ensure compliance with state staffing levels.
  • Maintain hiring list for all employees from stores that close going forward for preferential hiring at other Rite-Aid stores.
  • Use commercially reasonable efforts to pay retirement contributions if collective bargaining agreements require such payments.
  • Use commercially reasonable efforts to abstain from contesting unemployment for individuals who are laid off as a result of the sale or closure of Rite Aid stores if no nearby Rite Aid store offers employment.
  • Comply with nondiscrimination rules in the provision of healthcare services and to commercially reasonable efforts to provide financial assistance to patients.

The California Department of Justice’s Healthcare Rights and Access Section (HRA) works proactively to increase and protect the affordability, accessibility, and quality of healthcare in California. HRA’s attorneys monitor and contribute to various areas of the Attorney General’s healthcare work, including nonprofit healthcare transactions; consumer rights; anticompetitive consolidation in the healthcare market; anticompetitive drug pricing; privacy issues; civil rights, such as reproductive rights and LGBTQ healthcare-related rights; and public health work on tobacco, e-cigarettes, and other products.

A copy of the settlement can be found here.

Martinez Letter Carrier celebrates three decades of federal service

By Leave a Comment

Martinez, CA Letter Carrier Raul Hernandez. Photo: USPS

Pittsburg resident Raul Hernandez to be honored in ceremony Aug. 22

By Meiko S. Patton, Communications Specialist, U.S. Postal Service

On Thursday, August 22, 2024, Letter Carrier Raul Hernandez will be honored during a celebration party for his 30 years of service.

Hernandez, a Pittsburg resident, began his federal service as a Marine. He later joined the Postal Service in 1998 as a Letter Carrier in San Francisco where he worked for 18 years before transferring to Martinez, CA.

A typical workday for him involves casing mail, pulling down mail, sorting packages for his route and delivering mail. “It’s been a good run here at the post office. It was kind of fortuitous that I would one day work here since I worked as a postal clerk in the Marines,” he said. “The secret to my longevity has been my military background, the word quit isn’t in my vocabulary. I truly enjoy my job and have no plans of leaving.”

The celebration will be held at 8:00 am at the Martinez Post Office, 4100 Alhambra Avenue in Martinez.

 

ABAG, BAHFA leaders withdraw $20 billion housing bond measure from November ballot

By Leave a Comment

High-density, high-rise housing construction would have been funded by the bond measure. Photo: BAHFA

Removed from all nine Bay Area counties after Contra Costa attorney opposed to measure filed lawsuit claiming ballot language was slanted, forced BAHFA to correct more than $240 million error

20 Billion Reasons opposition campaign responds

By Allen D. Payton

Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) Chair Alfredo Pedroza and Belia Ramos, president of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s Executive Board today, Wednesday, August 14, 2024, issued a joint statement following BAHFA’s decision this morning to remove a $20 billion general obligation bond measure for the production and preservation of affordable housing from the November 5 general election ballot in all nine Bay Area counties:

“The BAHFA Board’s decision to withdraw the affordable housing bond measure from this November’s ballot is not one that was taken lightly. The Bay Area’s housing affordability crisis has been decades in the making and is far too big for any one city or county to solve on its own. This is the reason the state Legislature established BAHFA. A robust source of funding for safe and affordable housing across our diverse, nine-county region is essential to the Bay Area’s economic and environmental health and to its residents’ quality of life.

The decision followed the action of a group of Bay Area residents, known as Opportunity Now, who opposed the $20 billion regional housing bond measure and filed a court challenge on Thursday, Aug. 8, 2024, to Regional Measure 4’s (RM4) 75-word ballot question claiming it was slanted.

Source: Opportunity Now

Following is the press release from the group announcing the lawsuit, entitled “BAHFA blunders on ballot language for Bay Area tax measure” and “Gets busted for wildly lowballing cost to taxpayers”:

“Talk about misinformation. The discredited Bay Area Housing Finance Authority yesterday admitted that they’d misrepresented in ballot language the annual cost to taxpayers of the mammoth bond by (hold on) more than $240 million (you read that right) per year.

“The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), a recently created regional agency, placed RM4 on the November 5 ballot. The unprecedented size of the bond measure has already drawn opposition.

The 20BillionReasons.com group helped pull together ballot arguments rebutting the claims for the measure. The lawsuit asserts that the ballot question is slanted to prejudice voters to vote in favor of the measure.

BAHFA conducted multiple polls to test various phrases in relation to the measure and picked the most popular ones. The lawsuit asserts that the ballot question contains a series of phrases that are not found in the language of the measure. The legal standard is that the ballot question must be an accurate synopsis.

Opponents’ Attorney Jason Bezis sent BAHFA a letter last Friday demanding a series of nine language changes to remove prejudicial language. Opponents assert that the true annual cost of the measure is nearly 36% higher than the amount shown in the ballot question.

The very name of the measure is deceptive: Bay Area Affordable Plan. This measure’s taxes will make the Bay Area even less affordable. In response, BAHFA held a special meeting of its Executive Committee this morning.

The lawsuit has already had success: The Committee adopted General Counsel Kathleen Kane’s recommendation “to correct the Ballot Question for Regional Measure 4 by deleting ‘$670,000,000’ from the Ballot Question and replacing it with ‘$910,976,423’.” No other changes to the ballot question were adopted today.

General Counsel Kane described this as a “mathematical error”. Plaintiff Marc Joffe retorted: “How can the public trust an agency that can’t do basic arithmetic with nearly $50 billion of its taxes? Ridiculous.”

“By law, Regional Measure 4 is coordinated by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, so the Santa Clara County Superior Court is where this challenge was filed. The final language of the RM4 ballot question will now be determined by the court. See www.NoOnRM4.com for further information.”

“This public body, MTC in the form BAHFA, they finally acknowledged the public is not willing to support more taxes. It’s completely new to them. They’ve never recognized it before. They exist in this world in which the public is there to give them all the resources they want to monkey around with,” said David Schonbrunn, paralegal for the lawsuit said after the measure was removed from the ballot. “The worst part is MTC, when it comes to their transportation decision making, they have a dismal record on outcomes. Their outcomes are horrible. What I see them doing is it’s all about political deal making and it’s not about delivering solutions to the public.”

The BAHFA statement continued, “The BAHFA Board has always understood that it would be a steep climb to establish this source of funding. Recent developments have led the Board to conclude that the wise choice is to look ahead to another election season for a regional housing measure when there is more certainty and the voters have weighed in affirmatively on Proposition 5.

“In the meantime, BAHFA will continue to work on increasing the production of housing at all income levels, to preserve existing affordable housing, and to protect current residents from displacement. This includes maintaining, refining and expanding pilot programs such as the online Doorway Housing portal that makes it easier for prospective tenants to find and apply for affordable housing throughout the region and easier for developers and property managers to lease up their apartments; working to move thousands of planned housing units through the predevelopment pipeline; and implementing innovative programs to preserve affordable housing and prevent homelessness.

“BAHFA’s commitment to a regional approach toward solving the Bay Area’s housing affordability problems is stronger than ever. When the climb toward passage of a regional revenue measure resumes, the Board looks forward to teaming with every one of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities; and with the hundreds of other public, private and nonprofit partners who already have invested so much energy into this effort. Their work to prepare for a November bond measure, and the relationships built along the way, have laid a strong foundation for future success. Each step brings us closer to the summit.”

BAHFA is jointly governed by the ABAG’s Executive Board and by the BAHFA Board, which is comprised of the same membership as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). BAHFA and MTC Chair Pedroza and ABAG Executive Board President Ramos both also serve as members of the Napa County Board of Supervisors.

20 Billion Reasons Campaign Responds

In response to the withdrawal of the measure from the ballot, the opposition campaign, 20 Billion Reasons, responded with their own statement on Wednesday, August 14, 2024:

“This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.

Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars to pay bonds that would waste two thirds of their tax money on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”

The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity.

“Actually, working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California – a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden – is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes,” said Mattammal. “That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”

Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for November, many other expensive proposals remain on that ballot. The $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay and that they have a real voice in what is done with their tax money.”

John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications, Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission contributed to this report.

New laws impacting education go into effect as the school year begins

By Leave a Comment

George Washington Elementary School Principal Gina Lopez, in Lodi, welcomes students on the first day of school on July 30. Photo credit: Diana Lambert / EdSource

Include requiring menstrual products in elementary boy’s bathrooms – supported by all of Contra Costa’s state legislators; allowing kids 12 or older to consent to mental health care without parental consent, keeping transgender student secrets from parents, climate change instruction, more

By Diana Lambert, Zaidee Stavely, Emma Gallegos, Mallika Seshadri, and Amy DiPierro, EdSource.org, republished with permission

California students, including those in elementary school, will have better access to mental health care, free menstrual products and information about climate change this school year. The expansion of transitional kindergarten also means there will be more 4-year-old students on elementary school campuses.

These and other new pieces of education legislation will go into effect this school year, including a bill that bans schools from suspending students for willful defiance and another that offers college students more transparency around the cost of their courses and the materials they will need to purchase for them.

Here are a few new laws that may impact students in the 2024-25 school year.

Climate change instruction required

Science instruction in all grades — first through 12th — must include an emphasis on the causes and effects of climate change, and methods to mitigate it and adapt to it. Although many schools are already teaching students about climate change, all schools must incorporate the topic into instruction beginning this school year.

Content related to climate change appears in some of the state curriculum frameworks, according to an analysis of Assembly Bill 285, the legislation that created the requirement.

Assemblymember Luz Rivas, D-Arieta, the author of the bill, said the legislation will give the next generation the tools needed to prepare for the future and will cultivate a new generation of climate policy leaders in California.

“Climate change is no longer a future problem waiting for us to act upon — it is already here,” Rivas said in a statement. “Extreme climate events are wreaking havoc across the globe and escalating in severity each year.”

Menstrual products in elementary bathrooms

A new law in effect this year adds elementary schools to the public schools that must offer a free and adequate supply of menstruation products — in order to help younger menstruating students.

Last school year, the Menstruation Equity for All Act went into effect, requiring public schools serving sixth- through 12th-grade students to provide menstruation products. It affected over 2,000 schools.

The new law expands the requirement to public schools that serve third- through fifth-grade students. A Senate analysis of the legislation notes that 10% of menstruation periods begin by age 10, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

The new law requires affected schools to offer free menstrual products in all-gender bathrooms, women’s bathrooms and at least one men’s bathroom on each campus. The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes,D-San Bernardino, includes one men’s bathroom on each campus to offer access to transgender boys who menstruate.

Supporters of the bill note that menstruation isn’t always predictable and can strike at inopportune times, such as during a test. Menstruation products can also be pricey — especially for students who might also be struggling with food insecurity.

Girl Scout Troop 76 in the Inland Empire advocated for the bill. Scout Ava Firnkoess said that menstruation access is important to young girls, like her, who started menstruating early.

“I have another friend who also started at a young age. She had to use toilet paper and paper towels because she did not have access to menstrual products,” Firnkoess said in a statement. “We think young students who start their periods need to have access to products, not just those who start in sixth grade or later.”

Younger students on campus

Elementary students may seem to be getting a little smaller this year, as transitional kindergarten classes are expanded to children who will turn age 5 between Sept. 2 and June 2.

Transitional kindergarten, an additional grade before kindergarten, was created for 4-year-old children who turn 5 before Dec. 2. It has been expanded each year since 2022 to include more children aged 4. All 4-year-old students will be eligible in the fall of 2025.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond have celebrated the expansion of transitional kindergarten, pointing to numbers that show enrollment doubled over the past two years, from 75,000 in 2021-22, to 151,000 in 2023-24. However, a recent analysis by CalMatters found that the percentage of children eligible for transitional kindergarten who actually enrolled had gone down 4 to 7 percentage points.

Colleges must disclose costs

The typical California college student is expected to spend $1,062 on books and supplies in the 2024-25 academic year, according to the California Student Aid Commission.

The exact costs can be hard for students to predict, leaving them uncertain about how much money to budget for a given class. Assembly Bill 607, which Newsom signed last year, requires California State University campuses and community colleges to disclose upfront the estimated costs of course materials and fees for some of their courses this school year. The bill asks University of California campuses to do the same, but does not make it a requirement.

The schools must provide information for at least 40% of courses by Jan. 1 of next year, increasing that percentage each year until there are cost disclosures for 75% of courses by 2028. This year, campuses should also highlight courses that use free digital course materials and low-cost print materials, according to the legislation.

Proponents of the law, which was co-authored by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra, D-San Jose; Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles; and Sabrina Cervantes, D-Inland Empire, said it will promote price transparency. The bill covers digital and physical textbooks as well as software subscriptions and devices like calculators.

A student speaking in support of AB 607 in May 2023 said she felt “helplessly exposed and vulnerable” when she had to appeal to a professor for help covering the surprise costs of a textbook’s online course content.

“If I would have known that a month ahead of time, I could have organized and evaluated my budget in an effective manner for the entire semester,” said Rashal Azar. “This would have prevented my financial anxiety and not triggered my mental health as well.”

TK exempt from English language test

Students enrolled in transitional kindergarten, also known as TK, are no longer required to take the initial English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC). The test, which measures proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and writing in English, is required to be taken within 30 days of enrollment in kindergarten through 12th grade, if parents indicate in a survey that their children speak another language at home.

Previously, transitional kindergartners also had to take the ELPAC when enrolling. But many school district staff and advocates for English learners said the test was not designed for 4-year-old children and that it was not identifying English learners accurately, because the children were too young to answer questions correctly.

The California Department of Education has directed school districts to mark children’s English language acquisition status as “to be determined” in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, if their parents indicate on the home language survey that their primary or native language is a language other than English. These students will take the initial ELPAC when they begin kindergarten the following year.

Californians Together, which advocates for English learners, and Early Edge California, which advocates for quality early education for all children, were among the organizations that celebrated the bill.

“As the parent of bilingual children and a dual language learner myself, I deeply appreciate Governor Newsom, Assemblymember (Al) Muratsuchi, and California’s legislators for supporting our young multilingual learners by championing AB 2268,” said Patricia Lozano, executive director of Early Edge California in a news release. “This bill will create more support tailored to their needs and strengths, so they can learn and thrive from the early years onward.”

Kids can consent to mental health care

A new law that took effect in July makes it easier for children on Medi-Cal who are 12 or older to consent to mental health treatment inside and outside of schools. Children older than 12 on private insurance can already consent to mental health care without parental consent.

Previously, students in this age group could only consent to mental health treatment without parental approval under a limited number of circumstances: incest, child abuse or serious danger, such as suicidal ideation.

“From mass shootings in public spaces and, in particular, school shootings, as well as fentanyl overdoses and social media bullying, young people are experiencing a new reality,” said Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, D-Los Angeles, author of the bill. “The new law is about “making sure all young people, regardless if they have private health insurance or are Medi-Cal recipients, have access to mental health resources.”

Children who need mental health care but do not have consent from their parents could potentially seek help from social media and other online resources of sometimes dubious quality, according to the legislation.

The legislation allows mental health professionals to determine whether parental involvement is “inappropriate” and also whether the child in question is mature enough to consent.

California Capitol Connection, a Baptist advocacy group, opposed the bill, stating, “In most cases, a parent knows what is best for their child.”

This is not strictly an education bill, but it does affect schools. The law notes that school-based providers, such as a credentialed school psychologist, find that some students who want to avail themselves of mental health resources are not able to get parental consent.

No willful defiance suspensions

Beginning this school year, and for the next five years, California students across all grade levels cannot be suspended for willful defiance.

Acts of willful defiance, according to Senate Bill 274, include instances where a student is intentionally disruptive or defies school authorities. Instead of being suspended, these students will be referred to school administrators for intervention and support.

SB 274 builds on previous California legislation that had already banned willful defiance suspensions among first-through-eighth-grade students, and had banned expulsions for willful defiance across the board.

Studies show that willful defiance suspensions disproportionately impact Black male students and increase the likelihood of students dropping out of school.

Los Angeles Unified, Oakland Unified, San Francisco Unified and other school districts have already banned the practice.

SB 274 would apply to all grades TK through 12 in both traditional public schools and charters. The bill would also prohibit schools from suspending or expelling students for being tardy or truant.

Schools can’t ‘out’ students

After Jan. 1, California schools boards will not be permitted to pass resolutions requiring teachers and staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender.

Newsom signed the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, in July in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. At least seven California school districts passed the policies, often after heated public debate.

The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex.

The new law protects school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

“Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety and dignity of transgender, nonbinary and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, who introduced the legislation along with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.

 

Extended Reality: Shaping our technological landscape

By Leave a Comment

 Artificial intelligence-generated designs including one of the author’s glasses. By Neil Sterud.

By Neil Sterud

Having recently attended the 2024 Augmented World Expo (AWE) in Long Beach, I was struck by the growing prevalence of extended reality (XR) in our society. XR, an umbrella term encompassing virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is making significant inroads into various aspects of our lives.

Notable examples of XR are becoming increasingly visible. The Sphere in Las Vegas, with its immersive displays, showcases the potential of large-scale XR experiences. Virtual home tours have revolutionized the real estate industry, while Snapchat filters have made AR a daily reality for millions. Meta’s Quest headsets continue to push the boundaries of consumer VR. Even Facebook, recognizing the potential of this technology, rebranded itself as Meta in 2021, signaling a strong commitment to the “metaverse.”

While many desks currently feature multiple monitors, the future may look quite different. AR laptops and headsets promise to create virtual screens, potentially reducing the need for physical displays. Microsoft’s HoloLens and the rumored Apple AR/VR headset are examples of how major tech companies are investing in this vision.

After the conference, I experimented with Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses for a month. While their capabilities were impressive, including hands-free photo and video capture, I noticed that some features overlapped with voice assistants like Google Assistant. However, it’s important to note that smart glasses and voice assistants serve different purposes – the former provides visual augmentation, while the latter focuses on audio interactions.

This observation highlights a challenge in the XR industry: ensuring that new technologies offer clear value propositions to avoid being shelved. Nevertheless, using smart glasses is a form of augmented intelligence, a subset of artificial intelligence that focuses on enhancing human capabilities rather than replacing them. This concept promotes a collaborative partnership between humans and AI technologies, aiming to assist in decision-making and problem-solving.

XR is not limited to personal use. Industries such as healthcare, education, and manufacturing are exploring its potential. In healthcare, AR is being used for surgical planning and guidance. In education, VR field trips are making immersive learning experiences possible. Manufacturing companies are using AR for complex assembly processes and remote expert assistance.

However, the widespread adoption of XR faces challenges. Privacy concerns, particularly around data collection from AR devices, need to be addressed. Technological limitations, such as battery life and processing power, are ongoing issues. Social acceptance of wearable XR devices in public spaces remains a hurdle.

Despite these challenges, the collaborative nature of XR makes us all integral to the future of technology. As XR becomes more common, it promises to revolutionize how we interact with both digital and physical worlds. From enhancing workplace productivity to transforming entertainment experiences, XR has the potential to reshape numerous aspects of our daily lives in the coming years.

As we move forward, it’s crucial to stay informed about XR developments and consider their implications. Whether we’re early adopters or cautious observers, XR is a technological trend that will likely impact us all in the near future.

Former Antioch Police officer convicted by federal jury of conspiracy, wire fraud

By Leave a Comment

Former Antioch Police Officer Morteza Amiri was convicted by a federal jury on Thursday, Aug. 8, 2024. Herald file photo

Morteza Amiri is last of six Antioch, Pittsburg officers convicted of conspiring to defraud their departments by obtaining payments and raises for university degrees they paid a third party to complete

Information provided on cases for four other former Antioch officers

By U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of California

OAKLAND – On Thursday, August 8, 2024, a federal jury convicted police officer Morteza Amiri of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a scheme to obtain pay raises from the City of Antioch Police Department for a university degree he paid someone else to obtain in his name, announced United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and FBI San Francisco Special Agent in Charge Robert K. Tripp.  The felony verdicts follow a four-day trial before United States Senior District Judge Jeffrey S. White.  Amiri is the sixth officer to be convicted in the conspiracy to commit wire fraud, along with former Pittsburg Officers Patrick Berhan, Amanda Theodosy a/k/a Nash and Ernesto Mejia-Orozco, former Antioch Community Service Officer Samantha Peterson and former Pittsburg Police and Oakland Housing Authority Officer Brauli Rodriguez Jalapa. (See related article)

Former officers who pleaded guilty this year: Pittsburg officers Amanda Carmella Theodosy (aka Nash), Ernesto Juan Mejia-Orozco and Patrick James Berhan. Photos: Pittsburg PD. Former Antioch Police Community Service Officer Samantha Peterson. Photo: Antioch PD. (No photo of Oakland Housing Authority officer Brauli Rodriguez Jalapa could be located).

“We expect integrity and honesty from every police officer, every day, in the police departments across this country,” said U.S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey. “Amiri failed to uphold these basic responsibilities, and a federal jury has convicted him of defrauding his employer, the Antioch Police Department.  He, along with the other officers he conspired with, now face the consequences of violating the rule of law that they swore to uphold.”

“Amiri engaged in a calculated conspiracy to defraud his police department of taxpayer funds. His actions were a violation of the law and a grave betrayal of public trust,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Tripp. “Amiri and his co-conspirators’ deception has no place in law enforcement. With this conviction, he now faces the consequences of his actions.”

Amiri, 33, was employed as a Police Officer with the Antioch Police Department.  At trial, the evidence presented showed that the City of Antioch and City of Pittsburg’s Police Departments offered reimbursements toward higher education tuition and expenses, along with pay raises and other financial incentives upon completion of a degree.  However, instead of completing higher education coursework on their own, Amiri and his co-conspirators hired someone to complete entire courses on their behalf at an online university to secure a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice.  Amiri and his co-conspirators then represented they had taken those courses and earned the degrees from the university when requesting reimbursements and financial incentives from their police department employers, the City of Antioch and the City of Pittsburg.  They were in turn paid additional financial incentives, calculated as percentages of their salaries, while they remained employed by their police departments.

In a span of two years, the conspiracy included numerous other officers and former officers, including Berhan (Pittsburg PD), Amiri (Antioch PD), Theodosy a/k/a Nash (Pittsburg PD), Peterson (Antioch PD), Mejia-Orozco (Pittsburg PD), and Rodriguez Jalapa (formerly Pittsburg PD).

The evidence at trial showed that Amiri texted the person who took his classes for him, writing among other things: “can i hire you [ ] to do my … classes? ill pay you per class”; “don’t tell a soul about me hiring you for this. we can’t afford it getting leaked and me losing my job”; “if i submit my request for the degree on time by the end [ ] of the month i can coordinate my raise in a timely manner”; and “I’m gonna rush order my degree to get my pay raise jump started.”

On the basis of courses taken by this person, Amiri “earned” a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice.  Amiri applied for and thereafter received financial incentives from the City of Antioch for having completed university courses and earning a bachelor’s degree.

The jury convicted Amiri of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

U.S. Senior District Judge Jeffrey S. White scheduled Amiri’s sentencing for November 12, 2024.  Each of the two counts of conviction carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The Court may also order a fine, restitution, and supervision upon release from prison as part of any sentence.  However, any sentence will be imposed by the Court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

A federal grand jury in San Francisco returned multiple indictments on August 16, 2023, that collectively charged ten current and former officers and employees from the Antioch and Pittsburg police departments with federal crimes.  Amiri is the last officer to be convicted in the conspiracy to commit wire fraud case.

Amiri is scheduled for trial in another related case in February 2025.

Former Antioch officers arrested on Thursday, August 17, 2023, are Eric Allen Rombough, Devon Christopher Wenger, Timothy Allen Manly Williams and Daniel James Harris. Photos: APD

Here is the status of the cases: (Rombough, Wenger, Manly Williams and Harris are former Antioch Police Officers).

Case Number Statute(s) Defendant

(Bold: multiple case numbers)

 Status
23-cr-00264 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud; 1343 (Wire Fraud) Patrick Berhan Pleaded guilty 3/26/24, sentencing set for 9/3/24
Morteza Amiri Convicted at trial 8/8/24, sentencing set for 11/12/24
Amanda Theodosy a/k/a Nash Pleaded guilty 7/30/24, sentencing set for 11/5/24
Samantha Peterson Pleaded guilty 1/9/24, sentenced 4/23/24
Ernesto Mejia-Orozco Pleaded guilty 6/11/24, sentencing set for 9/17/24
Brauli Rodriguez Jalapa Pleaded guilty 6/25/24, sentencing set for 10/22/24
23-cr-00267 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations); 1512(c)(2) (Obstruction of Official Proceedings); 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Timothy Manly Williams Pending
23-cr-00268 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids), 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids) Daniel Harris Status set for 8/13/24
21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids);

18 U.S.C. § 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations)

 Devon Wenger
23-cr-00269 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law); § 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations) Morteza Amiri Trial set for 2/18/25
18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Eric Rombough
18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Devon Wenger
24-cr-00157 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids) Patrick Berhan Pleaded guilty 3/26/24, sentencing set for 9/3/24

This prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI and the Office of the Contra Costa County District Attorney.

City of Lafayette explains use of property taxes

By Leave a Comment

Source: City of Lafayette

As council asks voters to increase sales tax

By City of Lafayette

Have you ever wondered where the revenue from property taxes goes?

As seen in the above graphic, the largest share (57%) goes to school districts, including the community college; 14.1% goes to the Contra Costa Fire District; 11.1% to the County; 3.9% to utilities (EBMUD & CentralSan); 3.4% to parks (including the East Bay Regional Park District); and 3.9% going to various other public agencies (including BART).  The City of Lafayette receives only 6.67%.  Thus, for a single-family house assessed at $1M, while the property owner will pay $10,000 annually for the Countywide tax; the City receives only $670.

“People think that because Lafayette is considered an affluent community with expensive homes that, the City must get plenty of money from property taxes,” says City Manager, Niroop K. Srivatsa; “however, that is not the case.”

In fact, the City of Lafayette receives a lesser percentage of the Countywide property tax revenue than most surrounding cities. “Many people are surprised to learn that the distribution of property tax varies widely among the incorporated cities,” Srivatsa points out.  In Contra Costa County, the rate ranges between 5.4% to 27.7%.”  As to why that is, the answer is somewhat complicated, but goes back to 1978 when Prop 13 was passed.  At that time, the City had not imposed any local property taxes while other cities had.  When Prop. 13 standardized the Countywide general 1% rate, cities got the same percentage of the Countywide tax that had previously been levied locally.   That percentage was zero in the case of Lafayette.  Over the course of the next 10 years, Lafayette’s rate has increased to the current 6.67%, and that is where it has been for the last 36 years.

When asked if the City can get a larger share of these property taxes, the City Manager answers, “Unfortunately No.”  She explains, “100% of the general property tax has been accounted for; thus, increasing Lafayette’s share would mean decreasing another agency’s share, which would be virtually impossible.”

Even with this “low” allocation, the City’s number one source of revenue is still property taxes, generating approximately $7M each year – about 35% of the total General Fund revenue. With the addition of other funding sources like sales tax, franchise, and service fees, the City provides Lafayette residents with important public services such as:

  •  Maintaining public streets and storm drains in their present condition and providing timely pothole repair.
  •  Wildfire preparedness activities.
  •  Keeping the number of sworn police officers at the current level
  •  Providing services for senior citizens.
  •  Landscaping and maintaining City parks, open spaces, paths, and playfields.
  •  Traffic safety programs for all public road and pathway users, including people driving, biking, and walking.
  •  Continuing support for our community partners like the Chamber of Commerce and the Lafayette School District.

However, mostly due to inflation, the City is now facing a deficit of more than $2M annually.  Without additional revenue, City officials will have to make difficult decisions about which programs and services to cut back or altogether eliminate.

As part of the budgeting process, City leaders evaluated several possible options for generating additional revenues. They determined that instead of asking voters to raise property taxes by an average of $200 per parcel, they are asking the voters to authorize a 1/2% increase in the City’s Sales Tax, which amounts to one-half of a penny for every taxable dollar spent locally.

A half-cent increase will generate approximately $2.4 million annually; enough to close the budget deficit and maintain the status quo but not enough to address new or unfunded projects and programs.  A sales tax is paid by visitors who dine and shop in Lafayette, as well as by residents; therefore, funds are brought into the community to benefit Lafayette residents by people who reside outside the City.

If authorized, Lafayette Sale Tax will increase from 8.75 to 9.25%, which is less than the rates in Moraga and Orinda.

The funding Measure will appear on the November 5, 2024 ballot. Passage requires simple majority support (50%, plus 1 vote).  Revenues from the Measure will be placed into the City’s General Fund.  The City Council will appoint an Oversight Committee to monitor the way these monies are spent, and there will be an annual audit, which will be made available to the public.

The City Manager concludes, “Our goal is to keep pace with existing services and programs, while maintaining the City’s finances.”

As previously reported, the Lafayette City Council is asking voters to approve a half-cent sales tax increase to 9.25% on the November 5th ballot. They claim it’s needed due to inflation, unfunded state mandates and would last seven years.

About The City of Lafayette

Lafayette is a charming small community located in Contra Costa County, 30 miles from The City of Oakland. It’s known for its beautiful green hills, excellent schools, and miles of hiking trails, making it an attractive place to live. The City has a population of more than 25,000 highly educated residents, with 75.2% of them holding a bachelor’s degree or higher. Additionally, 73.6% of the homes in Lafayette are owner-occupied. The median home value is $1,914,700, while the median household income is $219,250. The total area of the city is 15.22 square miles.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.