Contra Costa Herald

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

Guest Column: Congress is targeting wrong driver of healthcare costs

By Leave a Comment

By Dr. Salvatore J. Giorgianni, PharmD, CMHE

I’ve been a pharmacist for more than 50 years. In that time, I’ve witnessed staggering medical advances. Patients now have access — at least in theory — to lifesaving medicines that seemed like science fiction just a decade or two ago.

But in practice, tens of millions of Americans struggle to obtain those drugs. In recent years, I’ve watched more and more patients approach the pharmacy counter, look at the required co-pay on the screen with horror, and glumly walk away without their prescribed treatments.

These patients have insurance. But all too often they can’t afford the out-of-pocket costs that remain after coverage kicks in.

The crisis stems, in large part, from the fact that big insurers like UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Humana don’t merely process claims, anymore. Their parent companies control physicians’ practices and hospitals. They also own pharmacies and operate pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen that determine which drugs patients can access and what they pay for them.

Today, just three PBMs (pharmacy benefit manager) control prescription drug access for roughly 80% of Americans. In virtually any other industry, that level of concentration would raise serious concerns about competition. Yet these vertically integrated conglomerates have warped the healthcare system to maximize their own profits — and gouge patients — every step of the way.

PBMs typically base patients’ out-of-pocket costs on drugs’ much higher “list” prices, rather than the discounted prices negotiated behind the scenes. Those inflated list prices only exist on paper, yet they justify higher co-pays while also generating larger rebates for PBMs and more profit for the companies that own them. In some cases, PBMs collect more from patients via co-pays or co-insurance than they actually reimburse pharmacies for dispensing a drug.

PBMs also profit by making it harder for patients to access the medicines their providers prescribe.
One of their most common tactics is prior authorization. Providers must justify prescriptions they have already determined are appropriate and wait for the insurer’s approval before patients can begin treatment. The process can delay care for days, weeks, or even months. Faced with those hurdles, up to eight in 10 patients forgo treatment altogether.

Then there’s “step therapy”, sometimes called “fail first”. Patients must first try one or more older, less expensive medicines before gaining access to the treatment their provider originally recommended. That may reduce short-term costs for insurers, but it can also delay effective care and, in some cases, seriously harm patients.
Together these, and other, barriers contribute to unmanaged chronic disease, avoidable hospitalizations, and more than 100,000 preventable deaths every year.

Fortunately, Washington is beginning to crack down. The Federal Trade Commission has sued the nation’s three largest PBMs over practices that inflate drug prices. The Department of Labor recently proposed a rule that’d require PBMs to better disclose the fees and compensation they receive. And earlier this year, Congress passed legislation requiring PBMs to increase transparency and pass through more of the discounts they receive to employers.
It’s a great start — and a much more viable way to decrease Americans’ pharmacy bills than one of the other ideas frequently tossed around Capitol Hill. Some lawmakers want to mimic other nations’ price controls on prescription drugs. But artificially lowering what biotech companies charge for medicines would deter research investments — meaning that the pharmacists of the future will have fewer lifesaving drugs to dispense to patients.
Until policymakers decisively confront PBMs, Americans will continue to pay more, get less of the care they need, and be at risk of worse health.

Salvatore J. (Sal) Giorgianni, Jr, PharmD, CMHE is vice-president and cofounder of Healthy Men, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing the health of boys, men and their families. He is chair-emeritus and cofounder of the American Public Health Association Caucus On Men’s Health. This piece originally appeared in Issues & Insights.

Pros & Cons on Prop. 3, California’s second tax increase extension on higher income residents

By Leave a Comment

A voter casts a ballot during the presidential primary election on Super Tuesday in Oakland. Photo: Andrew Reed/EdSource

PRO: Teachers’ union leader says Prop. 3 would help lock in hard-won resources for student well-being

By Gloria Martinez, EdSource.org – republished with permission

When I was a special education teacher, I learned that one of the cruelest questions you can ask an underfunded school is: What can you afford to go without?

Before California voters passed Proposition 30 in 2012, this was not a hypothetical question. I saw firsthand how budget constraints affected students’ daily lives, especially in less affluent communities where resources were already stretched thin. Some schools lacked the counselors, school psychologists and social workers needed to recognize when a child was struggling. Teachers did what they could, but in classrooms of 30 or more students, we could not replace these trained professionals or meet every child’s needs alone.

By raising taxes on California’s highest earners (currently, couples earning more than $742,000), Proposition 30 generated additional revenue for public schools and higher education. In the years that followed, teachers across the state used collective bargaining to advocate for improvements that directly affected students and school communities: smaller class sizes, art and music programs, and mental health professionals who helped schools better support students’ overall well-being.

In Los Angeles, those resources also helped create conditions for educators to pursue further gains through common-good bargaining, including community schools, the Black Student Achievement Plan, and additional staffing. These were more than budget line items. They meant more readily available support for students, expanded opportunities for children from low-income backgrounds and from immigrant communities and communities of color, and greater capacity for schools to intervene when students and their families needed help.

Today, as voters consider Proposition 3, which would make these existing tax rates permanent for California’s highest-income earners, we must remember what it took to build that stronger foundation and what we stand to lose if it erodes.

If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue. This financial pitfall will make it harder for school districts to sustain the programs and staffing students rely on, including mental health and student support services. Counselors, school psychologists and social workers — positions we worked to expand in our schools — could be at risk.

If the tax rates expire in 2031, California would give its wealthiest households a massive tax cut and forgo an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue.

Protecting that investment is especially urgent as students face increasingly complex mental health challenges. For young people experiencing depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts, school-based mental health services reach more than twice as many as primary care or child welfare services. For many students, school may be the most accessible place to find help.

The need is not theoretical. Despite declines in youth suicide in California, serious mental health challenges persist. Schools need trained professionals who can recognize warning signs, respond to crises and connect students with appropriate care.

Students also bring fears into school that originate far beyond campus. Immigration raids across California have exacerbated students’ anxieties about family separation, fears for parents’ safety, and difficulty concentrating in class. In moments like these, psychiatric social workers have provided students with weekly check-ins, psychological counseling and information about legal support services. They have also facilitated community circles where students can discuss unfolding events and how those events affect them.

If schools lose these professionals, students and families will have fewer places to turn for help. Families with the means to do so may be able to pay for private counseling, but families without those means can lose access to critical support altogether.

The gains made possible by Proposition 30 demonstrate what sustained public investment can achieve. Without continued funding that would come from Proposition 3, it’s hard to see how schools can maintain those hard-won gains, preserve mental health services and build the capacity they need to respond to students’ changing needs.

Years from now, our students will have to live with the consequences of the choices we make during this election. Children need more than academic instruction to thrive. They need the stability and support that allow them to recover from setbacks, develop confidence and imagine a future beyond their immediate challenges.

Proposition 3 will not magically fix California’s schools. But without this revenue, schools will struggle to maintain the staffing and programs our students deserve. The question we must ask is not simply what California can afford to fund, but what we are willing to risk going without.

Gloria Martinez is the president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

Voters at a polling place. Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

CON: Taxpayers leader says California doesn’t need another forever tax

As statewide student enrollment declines

By Robert Gutierrez, EdSource.org – republished with permission

Proposition 3 asks voters to approve a massive tax increase that would not take effect until 2031, when California’s finances may look completely different from how they do today. Voters should reject Proposition 3 and keep their options open.

In 2031, there will be a new president in the Oval Office, a new governor, and a different political landscape in California — especially if voters approve Proposition 40 to impose a wealth tax that could prompt an exodus of the taxpayers targeted by Proposition 3.

The state also will have significantly fewer students in our public schools. The Department of Finance projects a decline of 710,500 students from 2026 through 2036, and by the midpoint of this decline, we undoubtedly will see some major changes in the education structure.

This is only the beginning of the list of unknowns. Other questions include:

  • Will Californians still be paying billions of dollars per year for a nonfunctioning “high-speed” railroad system in 2031, rather than prioritizing schools for that spending?
  • Will taxpayers still be paying for ineffective programs that haven’t solved homelessness?
  • Will startups launch in California, or take their jobs and economic benefits to states with more competitive tax rates?

In short, it makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.

What difference could five years make?

California’s finances can change substantially in a short period. Total state revenue for the current fiscal year is projected to be $21.5 billion higher than the amount collected five years earlier. The Department of Finance also recently reported that general fund revenue was running $5.5 billion above the projection used to draft the 2026-27 budget just six months earlier. This means the education funding guarantee will go up, too.

It makes no sense to amend the state constitution to commit to a tax increase now, five years in advance, when we have no idea what condition the state will be in when the tax would take effect.

Timing is only one of the problems. While Proposition 3 is marketed as a “tax extension” that would only affect high-income residents, the truth is that it’s a major tax increase that would hit millions of small businesses as well as high-income individuals. The result: California’s affordability crisis gets worse.

The small-business aspect of Proposition 3 hasn’t received enough attention. California’s tax structure does not neatly separate business income from personal income, and many small businesses operate as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or S corporations that report business earnings on personal income tax returns.

This means the higher tax rates imposed by Proposition 3 would increase taxes on many small businesses, ultimately leading to higher prices for customers, fewer job opportunities for workers, or both.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in February that sole proprietorships accounted for more than 3 million California businesses in 2023. But the number of those businesses whose owners would be impacted by Proposition 3 depends on their taxable income.

To the extent that Proposition 3 would hit high-income earners, it would make California more reliant on the most volatile source of revenue, while simultaneously making it even more volatile by giving high-income residents a new incentive to leave the state.

California already imposes the nation’s highest personal income taxes and would have a top personal income tax rate of 10.3% on income over $1 million without Proposition 3. The state also imposes a 1.3% State Disability Insurance tax on all income from salaries and wages, bringing the top tax rate to 11.6% on those forms of income, without Proposition 3.

As for the issue of an “extension” versus an “increase,” the fact is clear: If Proposition 3 is approved, Californians will pay $5 billion to $15 billion a year more in state income tax than if the initiative is defeated (according to estimates by the Legislative Analyst’s Office). That’s an increase — and a very large one, at that.

Finally, the measure would continue the trend in which “temporary” taxes in California never seem to go away. As the proponents of Proposition 40 are discovering, voters are extremely distrustful of taxes described as temporary. Why? In large part because of Proposition 3 and its predecessor, Proposition 55 of 2016, asking voters to renew a tax originally described as a temporary charge to cover an emergency.

The ballot argument for the original initiative, Proposition 30 of 2012, said the taxes “are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety” — one of the argument’s five mentions of the allegedly temporary nature.

With revenue arriving above projections and the state spending billions on questionable programs without proper controls or a review of effectiveness, it can no longer be said that California has a fiscal emergency.

The voters should give much-needed relief to small businesses and their customers, avoid making fiscal decisions prematurely, and let the “emergency tax” expire on schedule. Vote NO on Proposition 3.

Robert Gutierrez is president of the California Taxpayers Association, which is celebrating its 100th year of serving as the state’s largest and oldest association representing taxpayers in this state.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view.

Letter writer says DeSaulnier only had two bills become law, vote for Frese for Congress instead

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor,

I live in Walnut Creek, and I’m voting for Jeff Frese for Congress in District 10. I recently posted on Nextdoor to ask my neighbors to give Frese a look before they fill out their ballots.

Mark DeSaulnier has been in Congress for twelve years. In that time, two of his bills became law. One named a post office. The other moved a park boundary. Twelve years is long enough to judge someone’s work, and that is the work.

Jeff Frese lives in Moraga. He isn’t a career politician, and the first thing on his list is one every parent in this county can get behind: no federal income tax on public school teachers. The people we trust with our kids all day shouldn’t need a second job to live in the towns where they teach.

Frese has challenged DeSaulnier to a debate. DeSaulnier won’t debate him. When you’ve never had to earn the vote, you never have to show up.

One party has held every statewide office in California since 2011. We pay the highest gas prices in the country. More people are leaving this state than any other, and the U-Haul one-way exodus is the receipt. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result hasn’t worked.

I’m not asking anyone to change parties. I’m asking them to consider hiring someone who will actually show up and do the job. Someone who will prioritize the interests of his constituents over his self-interest or his allegiance to any political party. Someone who is determined to act and to create a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Talk is cheap. The time to act is now.

Ballots are due Tuesday, November 3. I’m voting for Jeff Frese, and I hope you’ll join me. For more information visit https://freseforcongress.com.

Regards,

Philip Ho

Walnut Creek

Endorsement: Walnut Creek’s Measure U for senior housing, mixed-use development near BART station just makes sense

By Leave a Comment

By Allen D. Payton, Publisher

While it shouldn’t have to take a developer to get a measure placed on the ballot to obtain approval for a transit-oriented development housing and mixed-use project next to a BART station, the fact that Hall Equities Group has gone the extra mile to do so with Measure U is worth noting, having gathered public support to go directly to the voters and send a clear message to a different Hall, that is City Hall.

As previously reported, Measure U would update zoning in Downtown Walnut Creek to allow for more than 200 units of high-quality senior housing on a 2.4-acre, transit-oriented site near the Walnut Creek BART station. The rezoning would create an opportunity to address the city’s growing need for senior housing while allowing residents to remain close to family, friends, healthcare, shopping and other community services as they age.

The initiative would also support a mixed-use community with retail, a plaza and food-oriented businesses, creating a more vibrant and walkable downtown while supporting local businesses. By directing new housing to an area already served by BART, the initiative advances smart, sustainable growth and makes it easier for seniors to maintain mobility and independence without relying solely on a car.

Summary – What Measure U Does

Measure U takes an existing vacant office building, large above-ground parking structure and office-only zoning and changes the zoning to senior housing, market and retail, and office space.

Please see the Resolution, City Attorney Analysis and Argument in Favor.

As is stated by the Yes on Measure U’s Argument in Favor, “This initiative aligns with Walnut Creek’s General Plan, including the City’s recently adopted Housing Element and North Downtown Specific Plan. It advances Walnut Creek’s goals for sustainable growth, reduced traffic, and enhanced quality of life, and to begin to balance the supply Of housing in Walnut Creek designated for seniors. Measure U is a responsible, forward-thinking investment in Walnut Creek’s future. It provides the housing our seniors need while creating a thriving mixed-use area for everyone – without raising taxes.” I especially like that last part. The housing will not be taxpayer subsidized as are so many other residential projects currently under development in the county.

Aerial view of location and map of the proposed project and elements near the Walnut Creek BART Station. Source: Yes on Measure U

No Organized Opposition

The fact that there has been no organized opposition to the measure and no Argument Against it was submitted for inclusion in the County’s election guide, reflects the broad community support for creating more senior housing and a connected, transit-oriented community in Downtown Walnut Creek.

My Connection to Walnut Creek

For parts of my life, I grew up and graduated from high school in Walnut Creek and my first job after college was working for a small, boutique, Walnut Creek-based in-fill housing developer that built 10- to 40-lot subdivisions in Walnut Creek and Concord. Also, I first became involved in public service in 1989 with an appointment by the City Council to the Land Use Subcommittee of the Walnut Creek in the Year 2000 Committee. While it’s 37 years later, the long-term plans of focusing high-density housing near the Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill (Contra Costa Centre) BART Stations just made sense, then and still do, now.

Long-Time Supporter of TOD

I later went on to serve on the Antioch City Council from 1994-98 and during that time – with the knowledge I’d gained in Walnut Creek – co-authored a growth management advisory measure, also labeled Measure U, which tied new growth in that city to widening of Highway 4 and new school construction, which was sorely needed then, called “growth metering”, and it passed overwhelmingly by 69% of the vote. I also represented East County on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and three other East County transportation boards.

For full disclosure, because of that experience I later helped start and currently serve in leadership for three companies which are focused on bringing a low-cost, solar-powered electric, ultra-light rail transit system for both passengers and freight as well as the associated real estate development surrounding the stations, known as transit oriented development (TOD) and transit villages, also referred to as livable, walkable, sustainable communities. (On a side note, I was there the night one of the Long brothers, after speaking and pounding his cane on the floor in defiance, was told by the Walnut Creek City Council his company could not build on their own land on North Civic Drive. As a result, Long’s Drugs ended up building offices in Antioch for their support personnel, also, because they learned so many of their employees lived in that city. But it would have made more sense for them to build just blocks away from the Walnut Creek BART Station).

So, I’m clearly a supporter of high-density housing, commercial and retail next to and near transit stations. It also helps implement one of the bills signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger, specifically, SB 375 (2008) which requires “coordinating the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional transportation process while maintaining local authority over land use decisions,” and formed the basis for the Plan Bay Area effort.

But to be perfectly clear, my businesses have no interest in or connection to the Walnut Creek BART station area TOD plans and projects. Our companies’ plans are focused on other parts of the county, the Bay Area, throughout the state, nation and internationally. So, this endorsement of Measure U will serve no benefit to either my businesses or me, personally.

Connection to Mark Hall

While I’ve been familiar with Mark Hall, Chairman of the Board of Hall Equities Group, since his father Merle was Mayor of Walnut Creek and nominated me for that appointment to the committee in 1989, I am primarily familiar with the work Mark and his company have done through the years to bring good projects to Walnut Creek, including the COPA Soccer Training Center in the Shadelands and the Shadelands Sports Mall, where it’s located.

So, it’s not because of any personal benefit or connection that I support the measure he and his company are championing.

Measure U Makes Sense

I’m endorsing Measure U because it just makes sense and I trust that Mark and his company will bring a quality project to the city which will benefit not only the seniors who will end up living there, but the entire Walnut Creek community and beyond. For example, those of us who chose to live in East County (mainly due to housing affordability over the past 35 to 40 years) and whose parents choose to live in this new development, we will be able to ride BART from Antioch, Pittsburg and Bay Point, or anywhere else along the BART system, to visit them and vice versa. (Assuming the BART Board doesn’t end up closing the East County stations. But that’s another matter for discussion, with a related measure also on the November ballot). Actually, thinking about it, I’m getting up there in age and I might end up wanting to return to Walnut Creek and live in the senior housing there some day, myself! That would be the only way this project could benefit me, personally. LOL

Seriously, I encourage the voters of Walnut Creek to support the project, allow for the senior housing, retail, restaurants and community plaza near the BART Station by voting yes on Measure U.

While the election is on Tuesday, November 3rd, you should have already received your ballot in the mail. If you haven’t done so, yet please get it out and fill in the oval next to “Yes” under Measure U. Thank you for your consideration.

For more information visit www.wcseniorhousing.org.

California feeds kids at school. What happens on the weekend?

By Leave a Comment

Rescued produce sorted at White Pony Express before delivery to community partners in Contra Costa County. Source: WPE

Guest Commentary

By Tyler McCarthy, Outreach Associate, White Pony Express

On Friday afternoon, for a student who eats breakfast and lunch at school, the dismissal bell does more than end the school day. It starts a 68-hour clock. The last dependable school meal of the week has just been served. The next one won’t arrive until Monday morning.

We hear from our school partners what those hours can mean. As one parent liaison put it: “My thinking was that if I can give them a meal for Saturday, then they only have to get through Sunday. That lessens the need.”

California has done something remarkable. In 2022–23, it became the first state in the nation to guarantee every public school student access to free breakfast and lunch, regardless of family income. Nearly 3.5 billion school meals have been served since the program began.

It works. And at a time when changes to federal nutrition programs are putting additional pressure on some California families, it’s an achievement we must protect.

But hunger doesn’t follow a school calendar.

California’s universal meals program feeds children during the school day. Children still need to eat Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, holidays and school breaks. California has also embraced summer grocery benefits for eligible families, another important piece of the solution. But summer assistance does not solve the gap that arrives every week between Friday afternoon and Monday morning.

For a family already choosing between rent, utilities, transportation, and groceries, those aren’t simply gaps in a schedule. They can be the days the refrigerator runs empty. That’s where White Pony Express makes an enormous difference.

Every day, White Pony Express drivers collect surplus food from grocers, farms, wholesalers, and restaurants – high-quality food that is perfectly good but has nowhere to go. We sort it for quality the same day and deliver it, free of charge, to neighbors throughout Contra Costa County. Of the 135,000 people White Pony Express serves each year, nearly one-third – about 40,300 – are children.

Photo: WPE

Our School Pantry Program brings fresh groceries directly into 23 school communities where 80 percent or more of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals. Families shop at no cost, with no forms and no questions asked.

One pantry coordinator remembers a young mother raising three children alone after losing her husband. She came to the pantry for groceries, including peanut butter and chicken.

“She doesn’t have money to buy much,” the coordinator told us, “but she told me it’s a blessing to have White Pony Express helping us.”

Since the School Pantry Program began in 2015, White Pony Express has delivered more than three million pounds of food to school communities – the equivalent of roughly 2.5 million meals.

The model works because it connects two resources that already exist: good food that would otherwise go unused and trusted neighborhood schools where families already gather.

It also demonstrates something larger. Public programs and community organizations do not have to compete with one another. They can complete one another.

Photos: WPE

California has shown what is possible when we make a public commitment to feed children at school and then build a system capable of doing it at an extraordinary scale. Now we need to look just as honestly at the hours the school cafeteria cannot cover.

More than two million California children still lack reliable access to healthy food. For them, the problem doesn’t begin Monday morning. It begins Friday afternoon, when the bell rings. And that is a gap communities like ours can – and must – close.

To volunteer, donate food, or support the School Pantry Program, visit whiteponyexpress.org.

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.