Contra Costa Herald

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

How does the escrow process work?

By Leave a Comment

By Patrick McCarran, Real Estate Broker

An offer has been accepted, and a closing date has been set. Now the home is going through escrow, and the process begins and ends once the financing is approved and the buyer and seller have fulfilled their requirements. So how does it work?

A neutral third-party agent of the principals—buyer, seller, lender and borrower—is designated the escrow holder. This agent assists with the transfer of ownership by ensuring that the terms of the transaction are completed including safeguarding all funds (including the buyer’s deposit) and documents.

The escrow holder is given instructions from the buyer and seller and keeps track of obligations. For example, if the seller is required to supply a termite inspection, the escrow holder will make sure it is fulfilled before any funds are transferred to the seller. Findings in the termite inspection report must be corrected on or before the close of escrow.

In addition, the escrow holder receives from the title company a complete ownership history of the property and any liens on record in the preliminary title report. Any discrepancies that affect the condition of the title, such as condo liens, judgments, etc., against the buyer and seller, must be addressed prior to close of escrow.

Source: thepaymentsbusiness.com

The escrow process can last any number of days depending on what is agreed upon between the buyer and the seller. To ensure a timely closing, it is important that each party provides the escrow holder requested information as soon as possible. For example, a lender will not fund a new home without a homeowner’s insurance policy. Without the lender’s verification that there is insurance, the escrow process may be delayed.  An unsecured source of funding, such as a personal check, can also delay the process, because it takes longer for those types of funds to clear.

Most buyers think that their check will not be cashed until the close of escrow, but that is not the case. The check is cashed by the escrow company immediately and held in a trust account. If anything out of the ordinary is to be done at the close of escrow with the seller’s proceeds, the escrow holder must be notified. A signed amendment is required for wiring funds or splitting proceeds.

The escrow process is just one step towards fulfilling the dream of homeownership. Your real estate professional can provide more detail on the escrow process, as well as answer other questions you may have about home buying and selling.

Patrick McCarran is a local Realtor and Broker DRE# 01325072. He can be contacted by phone or text at (925) 899-5536, pmccarran@yahoo.com or www. CallPatrick.com. An independently owned and operated office.  In association with Realty One Group Elite DRE# 0193160. Equal Housing Opportunity.

Paid advertising.

Father writes about children’s East County schools interdistrict transfer process

By Leave a Comment

After Contra Costa County Board of Education denies appeal

By Phillip Balistreri

The speech I wrote out for my children’s interdistrict transfer appeal hearing on 09/08/2026 provides all the details.

“Good morning. My name is Phillip William Balistreri, and I am the father of Emerald Marie Balistreri and Sierra Rose Balistreri. My reason for being here today is to respectfully request that the board approve our appeal of the interdistrict transfer denial Byron Union School District has issued, so that my children can remain at the school they are currently attending, Vintage Parkway Elementary School in the Oakley Union School District.

For economic reasons, my family and I moved from Oakley, to Discovery Bay over the summer. These cities are less than 15 minutes away from each other, and my wife and I chose Discovery Bay because it was close enough to continue sending our children to Vintage Parkway. The staff at Vintage Parkway told us they would love for Emerald and Sierra to continue coming to their school and informed us how to get the process going to make it happen. We thought submitting the transfer form through Byron would be more of a formality, as our children were already enrolled in Oakley and had been assigned their classes. To our surprise, the Byron Union School “District denied our request under Education Code § 48307(b), which, to my understanding, has to do with average daily attendance and school funding.

“After we learned of this decision, it was huge let down, as my wife received the email while she was in the middle of back-to-school night with our children, meeting their new teachers at Vintage Parkway. Byron also contacted the Oakley School District and told them to unenroll our children from Vintage Parkway immediately so they could start their new classes at Point of Timber Elementary School, a school neither of the girls have ever been to.

“After my wife and I did some research, we respectfully asked Oakley Union if our children could continue at Vintage Parkway under Education Code § 46603, which allows the girls to attend Vintage on a temporary basis until the appeal is settled. Oakley Union graciously accepted our request, and our children have been attending their scheduled classes at Vintage Parkway for the time being, and they have been loving the school year so far.

Emerald is eight years old and is currently in third grade. She is a very bright young girl with a lot of ambition for someone her age. When she grows up, she says she’s going to be a rocket scientist, but she’s also going to study giant snails in Papua New Guinea, and she’s going to be an animal doctor. My wife and I have informed her that if this is her goal, her performance in school is very important. Despite our advice, in the past it was difficult getting her to adapt to a classroom setting, but the staff at Vintage Parkway created an environment where she could thrive, and she is thriving now.

“She is currently enrolled in leadership, and in an extracurricular garden club at Vintage Parkway with a science field trip to Big Break planned in October, which she is very excited for. She has excellent scores in reading and math now, where before it was a struggle to get her to focus on her work without getting emotional or overwhelmed. She is also a very popular girl, with many friends at Vintage Parkway. It would be detrimental for her current success to remove her from the school she has always attended, and this isn’t just my opinion. There have been many studies done that show that removing a child from their school and placing them in another consistently shows dips in English and math scores, and added stress that my daughter just doesn’t need.

“Sierra is five years old and is currently attending kindergarten. She also did preschool in the Oakley Union School District and transitional kindergarten at Vintage Parkway. Her new kindergarten teacher just so happens to be the same kindergarten teacher my daughter Emerald had when she was five years old, and Emerald helps Sierra get to her class every morning. Sierra is also a very bright girl who is very athletic. She loves the monkey bars and prides herself on being the best at them in the whole school. She loves to boast about how she gives monkey bar lessons at recess and is teaching the other kids how to get better. So far she has been magnificent in school and has gotten awards for her kindness and understanding. Sierra loves her school and all of the friends she has in her class, and is looking forward to her fieldtrip to the Smith’s Family farm Pumpkin Patch with her whole class. She was also extremely excited to find out she had the same class as her best friend, Luna. Sierra is an inspiration to her class and a warm light who would be missed if she were to stop attending Vintage Parkway.

“We understand Byron has funding and enrollment limits, and these concerns are not weightless. But we are asking you to let two students who are already placed, already succeeding, and already attending Vintage Parkway stay there. Oakley Union has already demonstrated their willingness to host our children, and keeping them in their current school is the best choice for their educational success. Please keep this in your considerations when making your decision today. I appreciate you taking the time to hear me, and I would gladly take any of your questions now. Thank you very much.”

“After I spoke, Byron Union was allowed to present its side. The superintendent got on a soapbox about how transfers like our family’s request damage small districts. She said she had approved about 80 transfers like this, that she cares about children, and that this was where she was going to make a stand. She also said that if the board approved my appeal that day, she would have me come back every single year because she would deny our application again the next year.

“The county board ate it up. They were sympathetic to the district’s funding argument and treated my daughters’ educational needs as an afterthought, and even that is giving them to much credit because there wasn’t a single mention of my children’s educational needs made outside of my own arguments. They completely ignored it. When the board asked if I would be willing to come back every year and do this again, I said, ‘For lack of a better word, I would describe that as petty. But I am not here representing a district. I am here representing my daughters. They are what matter to me, and if I had to come back here every year to do what is best for them, I would.’

In hindsight I thought: why am I the one expected to respect the rules, while this superintendent is openly saying she would not respect the board’s decision and would keep fighting my children attending the only school they have ever known?

‘The very next day — today, September 9, 2026 — my girls were ripped out of their school. Oakley told us they are no longer allowed at Vintage Parkway because of the board’s decision. ‘Enroll in Byron or educate them somewhere else,’ T Amaral from Oakely Union School District said. It is no longer Oakley’s concern. Right in the middle of their classes, with field trips scheduled and a life at Vintage Parkway already underway, it was taken from them so Byron could protect its count.

“Oakley had agreed to keep them during the appeal under Education Code 46603 because they were already enrolled and assigned there, but their tune completely changed after the hearing. According to the board, it was the first time that code had been used in one of these hearings; some members had to have it explained to them in the room. Byron and the Contra Costa County Board of Education did not like that. Byron’s superintendent said the rule needs to be revised. They are very attached to the rules until the rules would let two young girls keep attending the only school they have known. The board made a point of saying they do not make the rules, they only enforce them. Then they ignored what 46603 had already shown: Oakley was willing, and the girls were already there.

“The board dismissed my daughters’ educational needs in favor of a funding concern that was never shown, in any detail, to harm Byron’s schools. Continuity is listed in their own appeal criteria (AR 5117.1 G6). Their written decision cites only G14: we failed to meet any listed criteria. They never explained why continuity did not count.

“That is the system. Funding and politics first. Two small girls who just wanted to stay in the school that already wanted them don’t matter at all. I will not put my children in a system that works that way. We are homeschooling. I am sending this because the public should see how these decisions are actually made.

“If Byron’s superintendent wants to stand on the soapbox that interdistrict transfers damage small districts, then I am standing on the soapbox that putting funding ahead of kids damages small children. As I left the meeting I stopped, turned around, and asked if I could say one last thing. I told them the reason California’s schools are at the bottom is because of this right here. Then I left the room heartbroken for my girls.”

Attached is the board’s final letter. IDT Appeal_Final Decision-Balistreri

Board’s Decision, No Further Appeal, Only Court Action

“Thank you for taking the time to read this.”

In a letter to Balistreri, his wife, Jennifer Burns, Byron Union School District Superintendent Crystal Castañeda and Oakley Union Elementary School District Superintendent Jeff Palmquist, Matt Wayne, Assistant Superintendent, Student Programs in the Contra Costa County Office of Education wrote, “An Interdistrict Attendance Transfer Appeal was heard by the Contra Costa County Board of Education at a meeting on September 8, 2026. Action on the appeal was as follows:

Action: Denied

Basis of Decision: AR 5117.1 – G14: Failure to qualify for any of the listed criteria shall result in denial of the appeal.”

According to district staff, videos of interdistrict transfer appeals meetings are not video recorded as they are conducted in Closed Session.

When asked if there is another level to appeal the Board’s decision Balistreri said, “The only appeal grounds we have going forward is legal action if there was some kind of discrimination. From everything I’ve found, they are well within their rights to deny this. I just think it’s wrong to rip my kids out of their schools when it’s funding concerns. That’s all they care about at the end of the day. They don’t care about the kids, their education or what they’re going through. That was not brought up once in the meeting other than in my speech and comments.”

“For the future people need to look at this and redesignate their priorities,” he added.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Beyond the chainsaw debate: Finding common ground on stewardship of America’s wilderness

By Leave a Comment

Graphic source: Don Amador

By Don Amador

A recent High Country News article entitled, A Ban on Chainsaws in Wilderness is Performative, Not Practical, has sparked renewed discussion about one of the most sensitive issues in public land management. While the article focuses on whether chainsaws should be used to clear trails in designated Wilderness Areas following the unprecedented destruction caused by Western megafires, I believe the larger story is not about chainsaws at all. It is about finding common ground on stewardship of designated Wilderness areas.

For decades, wilderness stewardship has been guided by principles established in the Wilderness Act of 1964, a landmark law that has served our nation well by protecting some of America’s most treasured landscapes. At the time, few could have imagined the scale of the ecological changes that would occur during the first quarter of the 21st century. Today, millions of acres of federal forests have experienced repeated high-severity wildfires, widespread insect infestations, prolonged drought, and extensive tree mortality. Across much of the West, trails that once connected visitors to remote landscapes are now buried beneath thousands of fallen trees or surrounded by hazardous stands of dead timber.

These conditions have created management challenges unlike anything previous generations of land managers encountered. The question is no longer simply whether trail crews should use crosscut saws or chainsaws. The more important question is whether our current management framework is keeping pace with the realities on the ground.

Fortunately, this is not a new challenge for public land management. Throughout my career, I have watched federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, recreation groups, local governments, industry representatives, scientists, and volunteers come together to solve difficult resource issues that once seemed impossible to overcome. Collaborative efforts addressing post-fire recovery, watershed restoration, sustainable trail management, forest health, invasive species, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation have repeatedly demonstrated that the best solutions rarely emerge from one stakeholder acting alone.

That same collaborative model should now be applied to the growing challenge of maintaining access and stewardship within our National Wilderness Preservation System.

Unfortunately, much of the current discussion appears to be occurring within isolated circles rather than through an open, transparent collaborative process. Some conversations are taking place within the Forest Service. Others involve wilderness advocacy organizations, outfitters, volunteer trail groups, or local communities. Yet there has been little evidence of a broad national dialogue that intentionally brings together the full range of interests that care deeply about America’s wilderness.

The Forest Service has not adopted a nationwide policy authorizing chainsaw use in Wilderness, nor should anyone expect such a significant policy question to be resolved through isolated project decisions. Instead, the agency continues to evaluate requests under the long-established “minimum requirements” process authorized by the Wilderness Act. While that approach provides flexibility on a case-by-case basis, it does little to answer the larger question facing land managers across the West: How should wilderness stewardship evolve as our forests continue to change?

A collaborative forum would allow participants to move beyond the emotionally charged question of “chainsaws versus crosscut saws” and instead examine broader issues such as post-fire forest conditions, trail sustainability, volunteer capacity, workforce limitations, visitor safety, ecological impacts and long-term stewardship objectives. Rather than debating a single tool, stakeholders could focus on identifying management strategies capable of preserving both wilderness character and meaningful public access for future generations.

Decisions developed through open dialogue are far more likely to gain public acceptance than policies developed behind closed doors or through litigation. Even when consensus cannot be achieved, participants gain a better understanding of one another’s perspectives and often discover common ground that would otherwise remain hidden.

This issue also offers an opportunity for the Forest Service to demonstrate leadership. The agency has decades of experience participating in collaborative partnerships throughout the West. Applying that same collaborative model to wilderness trail management could help establish a thoughtful path forward that respects both the intent of the Wilderness Act and the unprecedented conditions facing today’s land managers.

None of us knows what the final answer will be. It may involve increased funding for traditional trail crews, expanded volunteer training, improved post-fire restoration strategies, additional research, carefully limited administrative flexibility, or perhaps entirely new approaches that have yet to be considered. Those solutions should emerge from collaboration rather than confrontation.

Massive wildfires in the American West have changed many forested lands dramatically over the past fifteen to 20 years. Rather than asking whether chainsaws belong in Wilderness, perhaps the more important question is this: Can we bring together the people who care most about these remarkable places and work collaboratively to ensure they remain healthy, accessible, and resilient for generations to come? – That is a conversation worth having.

Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy, post wildfire recovery and recreation management profession for 35 years. He served as chair of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Commission (circa 1994-2000). Don also served as an AD Driver for the Forest Service North Zone Fire Cache during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 Fire Seasons.  

CA’s mixed-sex bathroom law kicks in just before school starts

By Leave a Comment

All-gender restroom in California’s State Capitol building. Video screenshot source: CA Family Council

“The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students.”

By Greg Burt, California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — California is quietly moving toward mixed-sex bathrooms in K-12 public schools, and the state’s own Department of Education is leading the way.

A new law California Family Council opposed, SB 760, now requires schools to provide at least one “all-gender” restroom option on campus.

Passed in September 2023, the bill was cosponsored by then-State Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda). He, then-State Senator Nancy Skinner, now-State Sen. Tim Grayson and Assemblymembers Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Buffy Wicks and Lori Wilson who represent Contra Costa County, voted for the bill.

The stated goal was to make transgender-identified students feel safer from bullying. But in the rush to accommodate those students’ feelings, lawmakers apparently gave little thought to a different safety question: what happens when boys are given access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms?

The State Is Already Building the Roadmap

The California Department of Education has an entire webpage dedicated to “All Access Restrooms,” describing it as a resource offering background information, planning and design resources, laws and regulations, and references for implementing “gender-inclusive” restrooms in K-12 schools.

The background information on that page acknowledges that “the designs of all-access restrooms have been trending in schools throughout the state, the country, and the world,” while noting there are currently no California design standards for these facilities. In other words, the trend is already underway, and the standards are still catching up.

The planning section of the CDE page is even more candid about the scope of what is being proposed. It describes “shifting from multi-user gendered restrooms and single-user all-gender restrooms to offering blocks of restroom facilities for all students;” meaning the goal is not just a single converted nurse’s bathroom tucked in a hallway. The ambition is to redesign entire blocks of school restroom facilities so that boys and girls share the same space.

What Would It Look Like?

The new all-gender bathroom designs typically eliminate urinals entirely, replacing them with individual private stalls accessible to everyone. The CDE’s resources page recommends an academic article published in the Education Sciences Journal titled “Expanding the Scope of Universal Design: Implications for Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation,” by Ellyn Couillard and Jeanne L. Higbee (2018), as a guide for implementation. That an academic paper on gender identity ideology is among the state’s recommended planning resources tells you something about the ideological framework driving these design decisions.

But keep in mind, SB 760 doesn’t require a complete redesign of a single-sex bathroom for it to become all-gender.

You Already Saw It at the State Capitol

If you want to get a glimpse of what legislators have in mind when they convert a single sex bathroom into an all gender bathroom, take a look at one of the converted male bathrooms at the state capitol, used by legislative staffers, adult visitors, and elementary school children visiting on field trips. California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt recently took a video of the empty bathroom located to one side of the Capitol Dome. “I’m pretty sure most parents would object to their young children sharing a bathroom while men are using the urinals,” Burt said. “Even without the adult issue, I’ve witnessed the chaos that occurs when young boys are pouring into the same bathrooms as the girls while visiting the Capitol. The girls are not happy about it.” (Watch video tour of Capitol bathroom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okTcKcP3ACQ)

So, what should parents expect when multi-stall bathrooms are converted to all gender at their child’s school?

What the Law Actually Requires — And What It Doesn’t

It is important to be clear about what SB 760 does and does not mandate. The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students. It could be single-stall or multi-stall. It must be supplied with menstrual products starting in 3rd grade, and it must be unlocked and easily accessible. But there are no requirements that urinals be removed or that additional privacy measures be added to stalls.

Sex-separated restrooms are still permitted, and most schools will continue to have them.

Burt explained what this means in practice for families. “How each school fulfills this new requirement is entirely up to the local school board. A conservative district might simply relabel a single-occupancy nurse’s bathroom and call it done. A progressive district could use this law as a green light to convert entire multi-stall restroom facilities to mixed-sex use. Parents need to find out right now what their district is planning,” he said.

The CDE’s planning resources make clear that the broader vision goes well beyond a single-stall accommodation in the corner of the building. It points toward a wholesale redesign of school bathroom facilities, one that treats sex-separated restrooms as a problem to be solved rather than a common-sense protection for children.

The Question Nobody in Sacramento Answered

SB 760’s supporters argued the law was needed to protect transgender-identified students from harassment, but the legislature never seriously asked the parallel question: does giving boys access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms create new opportunities for harassment and assault of girls?

California has seen case after case in recent years where policies designed to accommodate gender identity have created unsafe situations for female students. The discomfort of girls sharing intimate spaces with biological males is not a lesser concern. Lawmakers who refused to weigh it have not protected children. They have simply chosen which children’s safety matters.

Parents: Now Is the Time to Speak Up

Because each school board will decide how to implement SB 760 on its own campuses, parents have a real opportunity to influence what happens at their child’s school, but that window will not stay open indefinitely. Decisions about restroom redesigns and facility changes get made early in the budget and planning process, often before most parents are even aware the conversation is happening.

If you want a say in how your district handles this new requirement, call your school board member and school administrators now. Ask them directly: how does our district plan to fulfill the SB 760 all-gender restroom requirement? Will existing sex-separated restrooms be preserved? Will multi-stall facilities be converted? Every parent deserves to know the answers.

Here is one of the committee hearings from 2023, when SB 760 was discussed, and CFC provided opposition testimony. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwk7J82Prn8&t=1s

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

CoCoTax welcomes apparent defeat of Measure B sales tax, Measure G bond issue

By Leave a Comment

By Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Election night final results show Contra Costa Measure B trailing with less than 41% of the vote in favor. A relatively small number of late arriving votes are unlikely to change the outcome, given the 29,182-vote gap between the NO and YES totals.  Measure G is also likely to fail.

Measure B would have raised sales taxes by 0.625% around the county, would have cost consumers more than $750 million during its five-year life, and would have pushed total sales tax rates over 10% in most of the County.   Measure G was yet a fourth bond measure for the county colleges, adding to our indebtedness and long-term payment of interest.  The bond measures appear not to have ever been enough and with falling student numbers, huge investments make no sense.

As the official ballot opponent to Measure B, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association (CoCoTax) showed voters the deceptiveness of the proponents’ case, which included exaggerated claims about Medi-Cal funding losses, alarmism over emergency room overcrowding, and the false assertion that the tax did not apply to groceries (prepared foods, OTC medications, and non-food groceries would have been subject to the tax).  For Measure G, we showed the math behind it and how the only people looking to support it with money were unions whose contracts expire this month.  The unions also planned to take advantage of Measure B funds.

CoCoTax rallied volunteers to get the message out with signage, verbal appeals, videos, text messages and more. The organization made its first set of campaign finance expenditures, reporting approximately $20,000 of independent expenditures to the County’s campaign finance system. This spending paled in comparison to the $450,000 raised by the Yes on B campaign, mostly from unions seeking to maximize dues revenue.

Denise Kalm, a CoCoTax Executive Committee who agreed to serve as the group’s President Pro Tem this Spring led the successful effort against Measures B and G.

Reacting to the results, Kalm said, “Measure B would have given the Board of Supervisors another big infusion of cash; they already had burdened us in 2020 with Measure X and haven’t even found ways to spend/waste it all.  And yet, they came back with a 0.625% increase in sales tax demand, purportedly to fix the healthcare shortfall they claim President Trump caused.  None of it was true; none of their math added up.“

Though CoCoTax initially started only going after B, we made an effort to get G to fail, which worked.

CoCoTax welcomes more Contra Costa residents to join us and volunteer. We’re expecting many tax and bond measures in November and then again in 2028. While some may be reasonable, others, like the regional transit tax, require informed and active opposition. Neighbors who want to join us in “Fighting for Good Government at Affordable Cost in Contra Costa, are encouraged to check out our website at https://www.cocotax.org.

Contra Costa voters asked to contract, expand, extend County’s Urban Limit Line for 25 more years with Measure A

By Leave a Comment

The Proposed 2026 County ULL renewal map shows areas of contractions and expansions. Source: Contra Costa County

Would allow for expansion near Byron Airport, contractions elsewhere

Won’t affect ULL’s of the 19 cities

By Allen D. Payton

On Tuesday’s Primary Election ballot in Contra Costa County is Measure A, the 2026 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line also referred to as the Urban Limit Line and Land Preservation Plan Amendment Measure. Voters are asked whether to extend the County’s current Urban Limit Line (ULL) for 25 more years, as well as expand and contract it, placing a net of almost 9,500 more acres outside the line.

The ballot language reads, “Shall the measure amending the Contra Costa County General Plan and the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance to continue protections to the County’s non-urban, agricultural, and open space areas by extending the term of the County’s Urban Limit Line through December 31, 2051; adopting an updated Urban Limit Line map; requiring voter approval, except under limited circumstances, to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres; and retaining the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, be adopted?”

The county’s first ULL was voter-approved in 1990 and was renewed in 2006 which lasted 20 years.

Each of the 19 cities have their own voter-approved ULL, which supersede the County’s ULL, in order to receive local street maintenance funds from Measure J, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation. So, Measure A will not affect each city’s ULL only land in the unincorporated portions of the county.

Will Extend County ULL by 25 Years, Allow Expansion Near Byron Airport, Contractions Elsewhere

According to the County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of the measure, “In 2004, voters approved Measure J-2004, which extended a local transportation sales tax (Measure C-1988) by 25 years and allowed the County to receive a share of those sale tax proceeds provided the County had a voter-approved ULL.

“In 2006, voters approved Measure L-2006, which extended the term of the ULL to December 31, 2026. In order (for the County) to continue to be eligible to receive transportation sales tax proceeds after 2026, the ULL must be extended beyond 2026. This measure would extend the County’s ULL for 25 years, through December 31, 2051.

In addition, “the measure would amend the County’s 2045 General Plan and the 65/35 Ordinance to accomplish the following: (1) extend the term of the 65/35 Ordinance from December 31, 2026, through December 31, 2051; (2) require four-fifths vote of the County Board of Supervisors and voter approval to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres (except under limited circumstances); (3) provide for periodic reviews of the ULL by the Board of Supervisors and a required review involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) update and expand the criteria for moving land outside the ULL; (5) incorporate a revised ULL map that among other things delineates an area of future potential expansion near the Byron Airport; and (6) retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County’s prime agricultural land. This measure will become effective immediately if approved by a majority of the voters voting on the measure.”

The proposed County ULL would include contractions totaling 11,098 acres and expansion of 1,603 acres for net 9,495 more acres placed outside the Urban Limit Line. (See map). However, the acreage does not include the Byron Airport Potential ULL Expansion Area.

Yes on A Campaign’s Main Argument

The main argument of the Yes on Measure A campaign, paid for by Save Mount Diablo and supported by nine other organizations, is “The Urban Limit Line helps prevent traffic from getting worse. The more people have to drive, and the more cars on the road, the worse traffic gets. This election, say YES to protecting our open space and agriculture, safety from wildfire, limiting traffic, and encouraging housing where it makes sense.”

No on A Campaign’s Main Argument

The main argument of the No on Measure A campaign, paid for by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association is that “Measure A removes an additional 9,460 acres — equivalent to 14.78 square miles — from any possible urban housing use through 2051. That is larger than 10 of the 19 cities in Contra Costa County. Calling this a routine renewal misleads voters about what is actually on the ballot.”

The campaign also claims, “When Contra Costa restricts its land supply, families don’t disappear. They move — and commute back.”

Analysis: Growth is inevitable and acts much like a balloon, when it is restricted in one area, growth expands elsewhere. Such as in the Central Valley which feeds not only our state, but nation and world, and where land is cheaper and unfortunately, farmers can make more money selling to developers than farming. The result has been commuters driving further to work and blowing more polluting smoke out of their tailpipes, defeating the goals of the environmentalists, which doesn’t make sense.

At the same time, there’s plenty of room inside the current ULL’s of the cities for more housing growth to occur, especially in East County. Plus, the measure includes a potential expansion near the Byron Airport where commercial and/or mixed-used development could occur, as the long-planned, four-lane Route 239 between Brentwood and Tracy are built, the runway is potentially extended, a fixed base operation and fuel farm are built there, and a possible transit stop located there, as well.

Read more information on the websites for both the Yes on Measure A and No on Measure A campaigns.

See Full Text of 2026 CCC ULL Measure.

Opinion: CoCoTax says vote no on Measure G – a $1.88 billion burden Contra Costa can’t afford

By Leave a Comment

All graphics & charts source: CoCoTax

By Mike Arata

On June 2, Contra Costa County voters will decide whether to saddle themselves — and their children — with the largest bond debt in the history of the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD). Measure G asks for $920 million in new borrowing. With interest, the true cost climbs to $1.88 billion, with final payoff projected in 2059. CoCoTax has opposed this measure in official ballot arguments, in public presentations, and in a detailed response to a recent article in the Contra Costa College Advocate.

The case against Measure G is straightforward: it is far too much money, sought too soon given outstanding bond debt, by a district that hasn’t demonstrated the fiscal discipline to deserve it.

Already Drowning in Debt

4CD still owes on three bond measures as is:   2002’s Measure A ($120 million), 2006’s second Measure A, ($286.5 million), and 2014’s  Measure E ($450 million) —  totaling $856.5 million in principal alone. County taxpayers still owe nearly $727 million on those existing obligations, with the final payment on Measure E not expected until 2039. Measure G would pile $1.88 billion more on top of all that. If it passes, total bonded indebtedness reaches $2.61 billion, secured by Contra Costa County property values — with no senior exemption.

Enrollment Is Down 28% — Yet They Want to Build More

4CD advertises “nearly 50,000 students,” but that figure is misleading. California’s actual funding metric is Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES). According to the State Chancellor’s October 2025 FTES Report, 4CD’s count was just 21,940 — down 28% from 30,648 when Measure A passed in 2002. Expanding costly new facilities while enrollment trends sharply downward is the opposite of responsible stewardship.

“Deferred Maintenance” — Deferred Forever?

Roofing repairs, seismic retrofits, HVAC upgrades, and electrical work appear repeatedly in 4CD bond project lists going back to 2002. How many bond measures must pass before these basics get done? There’s a core problem: 4CD’s maintenance budget has crept from just 0.10% to 0.20% of Plant Replacement Value over the past decade, when the commercial building standard is 2–5%. Routine maintenance gets deferred so the general fund can support other priorities — including lavish administrative compensation — and then bond money pays for the fixes, with interest on top.

Executive Pay That Outstrips the Governor’s

While seeking $920 million in new principal from taxpayers, 4CD’s Chancellor drew a $404,238 salary (as of 2024) — plus $130,674 in benefits, for total compensation reaching $548,112. That salary alone exceeds the official pay of the President of the United States and far surpasses Governor Newsom’s $245,929.  Vice Chancellors, College Presidents, and Directors also earn hundreds of thousands in total compensation. Lavish pay and lean maintenance are two sides of the same General Fund coin.

Who’s Funding “Yes on G”?

The pro-Measure G campaign has raised nearly $400,000 so far — with the bulk coming from the tax-exempt Contra Costa College Foundation ($100,000), the DVC Foundation ($50,000), and multiple construction unions (IBEW Local 302, Plumbers Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and others). Contractor unions have a direct financial interest in a $920 million construction program. Ordinary property-tax-paying residents have no equivalent organized voice — a textbook example of what economists call “Public Choice Theory.”

The Bottom Line

Property owners already pay an average of $13.97 per $100,000 of assessed value toward 4CD’s existing bonds. Measure G adds another $10 — and that rate could rise if the county’s assessed values don’t grow at the 4% annual pace 4CD projects, projections that, by 4CD’s own admission, “are not binding upon 4CD.”

4CD should maintain its existing buildings with its existing budget rather than repeatedly turning to taxpayers for borrowed billions. Vote NO on Measure G.

More information: NOonMeasureG.info

Arata is an Executive Committee member of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Upcoming Events

CoCoTax Lunch, June 26: Former State Senator Steve Glazer Discusses BART Accountability
Friday, June 26, 2026 | 11:45am – 1:15pm PDT

CoCoTax Lunch, July 24: County Budget Overview with County Administrator Monica Nino
Friday, July 24, 2026 | 11:45am – 1:15pm PDT

For more information about the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association visit cocotax.org.

Opinion: Falsely framed CC County budget story promotes Measure B tax increase

By Leave a Comment

By Mike Arata

A report on the 2026-27 budget, by a Contra Costa County public information officer, is essentially a tax-promotion advertisement for Measure B’s intended 0.625% sales-tax increase.  It omits essential facts, to the potential benefit of the County’s already overpaid administrative staff and its 15 highly compensated employee unions.  Consider the following:

  1. The County’s tentative $7.248 Billion budget for 2026-2027, were it to remain unchanged at the July 1 start of new Fiscal Year 26-27, would still be a massive 60.7% higher than FY20-21’s $4.51 Billion. (See p. 8 at link.)  November 2020 was when the County passed Measure X, itself a 0.500% sales tax increase. The Bay Area’s CPI inflation rate, meanwhile, has totaled 18.4% since Measure X’s passage (358.6 /302.9 = 1.184). The County’s spending increase since the end of 2020 is 3.3 x the inflation rate.
  2. Measure B, on the June 2nd ballot, would add another 0.625% in new sales taxes, raising every part of the County above the statutory 2% limit on LOCAL sales-tax rates, over and above the existing statewide 7.250% rate.  7.250% + 2.000% = an effective statutory-limit total of 9.250%.  If Measure B passes, sales-tax rates in the County will instead range from 9.375% to 10.875%.   An additional 0.500% transit sales-tax measure is upcoming on the November ballot.
  3. In bypassing the relevant statute, all the County’s tax promoters had to do was to get an on-call legislator to include Contra Costa County in an existing, illegitimate Los Angeles bypass bill (AB1768), say shazam(!) — and poof!  No more 2% limit on any local sales-tax rates here.  (Actually, Measure X itself took local rates in six Contra Costa municipal jurisdictions above 2%.)
  4. As is, the County’s 2026 own union-member employment head count is up 4% over 2025(slide 10) — 10,308 vs. 9,913.  And 9 of the County’s 15 union contracts expire 4 weeks after Election Day.  That’s a clue for the likely real purpose of Measure B.
  5. As of 2024 (last year available), 4,781 County employees were already above $150,000 in salary plus benefit compensation.  3,056 of those exceeded $200,000.  1,045 of those exceeded $300,000.  278 of those exceeded $400,000, with 78 above $500,000.  How many executive-level employees does the County need?  How many should we pay for?
  6. Measure X presented an urgent, COVID-time focus on healthcare and “life-saving services.”  Now, allegedly, “lives will be lost” without Measure B (pages 33-34 of 86 in Voter Guide).  In fact, Measure X’s millions have been used for multiple other purposes.  And Measure B’s authorizing ordinance, like Measure X’s, again exposes this new tax as “solely for general governmental purposes and not for specific purposes.” County politicians and administrators could spend Measure B’s millions on whatever they consider “governmental” — as they’ve already been doing in Measure X’s first 5 of 20 years.  Measure B could facilitate or directly bankroll the next round of employee enrichments.
  7. Measure X, the template for Measure B, was supposed to collect $81 Million annually in additional new sales-tax revenues.  Instead, it’s taken in over $120 Million annually (page 11 of 16), and Measure X has another 15 years to run.  Meanwhile, Measure X has accumulated $263 Million in unspent funds (same page).  Those dollars, rather than more new sales-tax revenue, could and should be dedicated to any healthcare deficiency that actually develops.
  8. And speaking of excess funds, the County has a General Fund balance of $1.21 Billion, of which the unassigned portion is $585 Million. Both figures are more that 4 times the County’s own announced standardfor reserves on hand (pages 18 and 56 of 269).
  9. County supervisors tried to get away with an alleged $307 million ANNUAL healthcare budget deficiency, (e.g. hereand here) until I and others pointed to figures stated by their own financial advisory firm (itself holding an $8 Million contract).  That reality was a potentially CUMULATIVE $307 Million by FY28-29, not an annual one.  Their chief financial advisor then returned with a new slide showing larger potential amounts in FY29-30 and FY30-31 — in a new presidential administration and 2 new Congresses from now.  As stated in ballot arguments, Measure B is at best premature.
  10. Due to some funding restoration already announced, the new budget deficiency projected in an updated County slide was a cumulative $219 Million by FY28-29 (though minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ meeting presented the amount as $239 Million).  Even that is speculative; and again, Measure X could cover that amount if needed, under its originally announced purposes.  And to begin with, much of the funding problem derives from withdrawal by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services of “federal Medicaid dollars to cover health care for individuals who are in the country illegally” (as “a backdoor pathway to subsidize open borders”).
  11. The County’s Measure B propagandists claim elsewhere that “It exempts food, housing, and medical care, so most of the money from this tax will come from corporate or large luxury purchases.”   But as the East Bay Times said (among many other factors in opposing Measure B itself), “State data indicates that the average person in the county currently pays at least $1,050 a year in sales tax.”  Food/grocery exemptions?  Not for prepared foods, soft drinks, beer and wine, ice, many convenience grocery store items, etc. — and not for restaurant bills.  Housing exemptions?  Not for materials used to build and maintain houses.  Exemptions for medical care?  Not for over-the-counter medicines.
  12. Rather than voting to continue engorging the already vastly over-funded and overcompensated County spending apparatus and apparatchiks:  attentive and fair-minded voters will vote NO on Measure B — thereby to leave taxpayers, especially those already struggling with affordability problems, with more of their own money to spend for items THEY see as needs.

Regarding the County’s self-serving Measure B scheme — and its dishonest 2020 predecessor, Measure X:  the response now should be “Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us!”

More information:  StopMeasureB.com

Arata is an Executive Board member of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

 

The false and misleading case for the Measure B Sales Tax

By 1 Comment

By Marc Joffe

On Tuesday, a Contra Costa Superior Court judge declined to expedite a lawsuit demanding changes to proponents’ ballot arguments for Measure B, the county’s proposed five-year, 0.625% sales tax increase. That decision means voters will receive a County Voter Information Guide containing false and misleading statements about the tax increase.

This is not just a problem with Measure B. And it could get worse as advocates for taxes and bond measures make increasingly aggressive claims, irrespective of the facts, and without fear of a judicial remedy.

The case, filed March 27 on behalf of two Contra Costa voters, targets both the Primary Argument in Favor of Measure B and the Rebuttal Argument to the Primary Argument Against Measure B. The respondents are the five authors of those arguments, including a sitting County Supervisor.

The legal challenge was brought under California Elections Code section 9190, which allows voters to seek a writ of mandate during a 10-day public examination period to require that ballot arguments be amended or deleted if they are “false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements” of the law.

The Dubious Claims

The complaint identified over a dozen specific claims in the ballot arguments alleged to be false and/or misleading. Here are three that are especially notable.

Exaggerated $1.5 Billion Loss: The argument claims that “according to the county health director, our health system will lose more than $1.5 billion over the next five years.” This appears to have been based on Board of Supervisors materials which mentioned a $300 million annual loss for the five year life of the tax.

But at the March 3 Board meeting Supervisor Candace Andersen flagged the original $300 million annual loss figure as inaccurate. The Board’s adopted Resolution No. 2026-40 was amended to project cumulative losses of approximately $239 million through 2029. The County’s own budget presentation cited a six-year cumulative figure of $509 million. This is roughly one-third the amount we will see in the voter guide.

And even the $509 million estimated loss is unlikely to materialize. With Democrats almost certain to regain control of the House (and possibly the Senate), they will be able to implement their stated intention of reversing HR1’s federal budgetary changes that impact Medi-Cal.

Further, about a quarter of the remaining estimated funding loss is attributable to scheduled reductions in federal subsidies to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) like Contra County Regional Medical Center. As we discuss on our Stop Measure B website, DSH funding cuts were first included in the 2010 Affordable Care Act and have been repeatedly postponed by Congresses controlled by both parties. It is reasonable to expect these postponements to continue through at least 2031 when the tax sunsets.

Groceries, Food, Housing, and Medical Care: The argument states “Measure B won’t increase the cost of groceries” and “It exempts food, housing, and medical care.” The petition notes that the words “food,” “groceries,” “housing,” and “medical care” appear nowhere in the Measure B ordinance’s exemptions. Hot prepared foods are subject to sales tax, as are non-food groceries. Lumber, cement, and roofing materials (items associated with housing) are taxable. Over-the-counter drugs are taxable.

90,000 People “Will” Lose Health Insurance: The argument states that “more than 90,000 people will lose health insurance” if Measure B fails (emphasis added). The word “will” makes this statement false and misleading under California election law.

Contra Costa Health staff gave supervisors a broad range of the number of beneficiaries who may lose Medi-Cal coverage due to new rules, with 90,000 being near the midpoint. These projections are estimates, contingent on future legislative and administrative decisions that have not yet been finalized. No one can say with certainty how many residents will lose coverage.

There is a further problem that the ballot argument glosses over. Even if Medi-Cal rolls shrink in Contra Costa County, it does not necessarily mean our neighbors are becoming uninsured and will flood emergency rooms. People cycle off Medi-Cal for many reasons: they move away, they obtain employer coverage, they age into Medicare, or they pass away. Proponents misleadingly conflate any reduction in Medi-Cal enrollment with people left without coverage.

Implications Beyond Measure B

Unless you read this article or the plaintiff’s court filings, you will not be aware of these inaccuracies. And that points to a serious defect in California election law.

Ballot proponents (or opponents) can make false and misleading arguments, and get away with it, because the court process usually cannot unfold quickly enough to meet the County’s aggressive timetable for editing, translating, printing, and mailing ballot guides.

To remedy this problem, process reforms are needed. Either several additional days should be added to the pre-election timetable for claims like the ones against Measure B to be heard and adjudicated. Alternatively, California should move away from printed voter guides and instead post them on the web. Not only would that provide more time to edit inaccurate arguments prior to public exposure, but taxpayers would also save money on printing and mailing costs. It would be good for the environment too!

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

Opinion: Forest Service reform must recognize recreation as essential program

By Leave a Comment

Courtesy of Don Amador

By Don Amador

The recent move by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reorganize the U.S. Forest Service—including shifting key leadership functions out of Washington, D.C.—has sparked cautious optimism across both the powersports community and agency ranks.

For years, stakeholders—from tribes and counties to recreation groups and industry—have voiced the same concern: too much bureaucracy and not enough capacity in the field. The impact is tangible. Projects move slowly, fuels reduction lags, and recreation infrastructure—especially trails—falls behind maintenance needs.

Agency leads and field personnel are often tasked with delivering results while navigating increasingly complex processes with limited resources. The gap between policy and implementation has grown, and with it, frustration on all sides.

If done right, it could mark a long-overdue shift—moving resources, authority, and accountability closer to the landscapes and communities where they are needed most. The USDA’s emphasis on “common-sense forest management” suggests a renewed focus on active management, wildfire resilience, and getting projects across the finish line.

For the powersports community, this is not an abstract policy debate. Access depends on capacity. When field offices are understaffed or under-resourced, trails degrade, maintenance backlogs grow, and opportunities for collaboration are lost. When resources are aligned with field delivery, the opposite happens—projects move forward, partnerships strengthen, and access improves.

There is also a unique opportunity right now. The direction of this reorganization aligns with long-standing recommendations from stakeholders: streamline bureaucracy, empower field staff, and focus on outcomes. Across the West, collaborative models—tribal co-stewardship, stewardship contracting, and recreation partnerships—are already proving what works.

To succeed, it must go beyond structural change. It needs to continue shifting real resources to the field, empower local decision-making, and recognize recreation as essential infrastructure—not an afterthought.

See Forest Service news release on reorganization.

Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy and recreation management profession for 35 years.   Don is President of Quiet Warrior Racing LLC. Don serves as the Western States Representative for the Motorcycle Industry Council. Don is Past President/CEO and current board member of the Post Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance.  Don is a Co-Founder and Core-Team member on FireScape Mendocino, a forest health collaborative that is part of the National Fire Learning Network.  Don served as an AD Driver for the Forest Service North Zone Fire Cache during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 Fire Seasons.