The "Blank Check" argument

Opponents of Measure PF have argued that the City Council is being given a “blank check” with no controls over how the funds will be spent. That characterization is inaccurate.

Measure PF specifically dedicates funding to police, fire, and essential public safety services — expenses that are both critically important to the community and relatively stable and predictable from year to year. The Measure expressly directs how those funds are to be used.

By contrast, the opponents’ proposal seeks to dedicate parcel tax revenues toward pension liabilities, infrastructure projects, and police services. Pension obligations and infrastructure costs are inherently more variable because they fluctuate based on factors such as CalPERS investment performance, inflation, construction costs, interest rates, and unforeseen project conditions.

Regardless of which measure is adopted, the City Council will still oversee and allocate more than $20 million annually in discretionary General Fund expenditures. That is how municipal government functions. The opponents’ argument is ultimately an attempt to cast doubt on the trustworthiness and accountability of the City Council itself.

Importantly, City budgets are developed through a public process. Budget workshops, hearings, and City Council meetings are open to residents and available for public review and comment. There are no “surprises.” Residents have the opportunity to voice concerns, influence priorities, and ultimately hold elected officials accountable through the public process and elections.

The suggestion that every future City expenditure can or should be rigidly predetermined through ballot language is neither practical nor responsible governance. City Councils must retain the flexibility to respond to changing economic conditions, emergencies, infrastructure needs, and community priorities over time.