City of Antioch Land Use Map of Vacant and Underutilized Parcels Working Draft Version 3. Source: GPAC
Will again discuss the General Plan Land Use Map
Save Mount Diablo again tries to stop Zeka Ranch development with disinformation to residents after losing in court six years ago
By Allen D. Payton
The City of Antioch has announced the fourth meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday November 3rd at 6:00 PM in the Antioch City Council Chambers at City Hall located at 200 H Street in Antioch’s downtown Rivertown.
According to the City staff report, “The fourth GPAC meeting will continue the GPAC’s discussion of land use and the General Plan Land Use Map. At the September 1st meeting, the GPAC received foundational land use information, including the Existing Conditions Report Land Use Chapter, the Land Use Designation Change Requests, pending, approved, and under construction projects, and a map of preliminary vacant and underutilized sites and sites with open space and conservation easements. The October 6th meeting addressed economic development and fiscal sustainability, which provides important context for the land uses Antioch should plan for.
“Our objectives for this meeting are:
• Receive GPAC input on the locations and land use changes that will best attract investment, catalyze redevelopment of underperforming properties, expand local employment, and increase entertainment/third-space opportunities
• Translate the GPAC’s previously identified priorities into specific land use mapping approaches to be tested in the Land Use Map alternatives.
“The GPAC is not being asked to identify every change recommended for the Land Use Map or to go through the City at the parcel-level. Rather, we are seeking big-picture direction on where land use changes can do the most to attract private investment and create jobs, which uses are missing from Antioch’s land use mix, and how underperforming shopping centers, corridors, and vacant sites should be repositioned. Based on GPAC and community input, the General Plan Update (GPU) team will prepare two to three Land Use Map Alternatives. “The alternatives will be presented in the Land Use Alternatives Report to the public, the GPAC, the Planning Commission, and the City Council for input before a preferred Land Use Map is identified.”
Save Mount Diablo’s flier about The Zeka Ranch showing the map of the entire Sand Creek area in a high Fire Hazard Safety Zone. Source: Save Mount Diablo
Another Effort to Stop Zeka Ranch
Save Mount Diablo is again trying to rally Antioch residents to oppose the Zeka Ranch new home development. It comes after they pushed Measure T in 2020 which would have devalued the property to pennies on the dollar without compensation by reducing the number of homes planned there from 300 to just eight on the 640-acre parcel, after the developer previously reduced the total from 1,100 homes.
That followed the East Bay Regional Park District drawing an arbitrary line on the map threatening the City they would sue if homes were approved outside the line, despite the voters voting six times to allow housing on the property as it’s located both inside the County’s and City’s Urban Limit Lines. (See related articles here and here)
Zeka Ranch Land Use Plan showing the arbitrary General Plan Development Boundary drawn by the East Bay Regional Park District (see label in blue rectangle) and the flat land outside of the boundary (see red circle). Source: The Zeka Group, Inc.
Instead of fighting it, the Zeka Group voluntarily reduced plans to 338 homes on 196 acres, leaving over 440 acres as future open space.
Furthermore, the measure was tossed out of court because it also violated state law which prohibits downzoning residential property by either council action or citizen initiative. (See related articles here and here)
This time Save Mount Diablo is attempting to use the issue of fire danger and traffic on Empire Mine Road as the reasons, and they’re lying to Antioch residents in both fliers distributed door-to-door and a a post on the organization’s Facebook page on Thursday they wrote, “Please speak up to protect the Zeka property next Tuesday, November 3, at 6:00 PM, at Antioch City Hall, 200 H Street.
‘Zeka,’ the southwest corner of Antioch, is land mapped by CAL FIRE as being in ‘Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones,’ so it’s *not* a good place to build homes. But developers want to cover 640 acres in dense housing. Instead, it should be protected: Zeka is surrounded on three sides by protected open space. If you live in Antioch, the city wants to hear your voice! Please show up and encourage them to protect this beautiful area.”
Sand Creek Area map showing areas in red where proposed housing developments remain to be approved on the west side of Deer Valley Road. Source: Save Mount Diablo
However, that is incorrect. The current plan only allows housing on a portion of the 640 acres, in fact less than 200 acres as mentioned above, which will result in an average of one home for every two acres for the entire parcel.
Plus, according to Save Mount Diablo’s map, the adjacent property to the east of the Zeka Ranch, known as The Ranch, where 1,177 homes have been approved to be built, is in the same exact Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Plus, the area on the east side of Deer Valley Road where most of the new homes that have already been built are located, is also in the same zone. So, City staff and past Councils already took that into consideration when approving the homes and zoning in the Sand Creek area.
Plus, all the homes west of Deer Valley Road that have either been approved or have yet to be are within the total 4,000 homes approved by the City Council in 2003. That is much less than the total 9,500 homes originally planned for the area prior to that year which also included the homes that were to be built around the Roddy Ranch Golf Course which is now open space.
The flier by Save Mount Diablo containing misleading information distributed to Antioch residents. Source: A resident who chose to remain anonymous
More Misinformation in Flier Distributed to Antioch Residents
The reverse side of the flier which shows the Sand Creek Area map above asks the question in a headline, “A Square Mile of Houses Choking Empire Mine Road?” It also reads, “Tell City Leaders to…Keep Empire Mine Rd as Wonderful Recreational Path.”
But Empire Mine Road, which, except for emergency vehicles, has been closed to vehicle travel for years and only pedestrians, bicycles and horseback riders are allowed to use the road, and it will not be the access road for The Zeka Ranch project. Instead, the access will be from a road through the neighboring The Ranch project off of the future extension of Dallas Ranch Road, which, when it crosses Deer Valley Road, will connect to and become Sand Creek Road as shown in the map below.
Phase Map of The Ranch new home project in the Sand Creek Focus Area showing the access point to The Zeka Ranch on the west side of Empire Mine Road in the yellow circle. Source: Richland Communities
Alternative Option
What the General Plan Advisory Committee can do is correct the arbitrary decision of the East Bay Regional Park District and change the zoning boundary to again allow the 1,100 homes on the flat land of the Zeka Ranch property.
Meeting Details
The GPAC meeting will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 3 at 6:00 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown.
General public comments on items not on the agenda but on an issue related to the General Plan will be allowed at the beginning of the meeting. Then comments specifically about the agenda item will be allowed prior to discussion by the committee members. Prior to 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting: Written comments may be sent to Community & Economic Development Department, City Hall, 200 H Street (P. O. Box 5007) or submitted electronically to planning@antiochca.gov. All comments received by that time will be provided to the General Plan Advisory Committee Members at the meeting.
New Antioch Police Officers (front row L-R), Kailil King, Brando Fabian, Andres Garibay, Salae Carter and Bobby Kinard, are joined by (back row L-R) Lt. Joe Njoroge, Chief Joe Vigil, Captain Desmond Bittner, Sgt. Price Kendall, Captain Matt Koch and Captain Shane Bower following the graduation ceremony on Friday, Oct. 30, 2026. Photo: Antioch PD
Oath of Office Ceremony Nov. 3rd
By Antioch Police Department
On Friday, Oct. 30, 2026, we had the honor of attending the graduation of our newest officers! Please join us in congratulating:
Officer Salae Carter
Officer Brando Fabian
Officer Andres Garibay
Officer Bobby Kinard
Officer Kailil King
Chief Joe Vigil was there to congratulate each new officer in person at the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Training Academy.
The latest Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Training Academy class graduated on Friday, Oct. 30, 2026. Photo: Antioch PD
We are incredibly proud of each of them and excited to see them take the next step in their law enforcement careers as they begin field training! This is an exciting milestone, and we look forward to watching them continue to learn, grow, and serve our Antioch community.
Congratulations, officers! We’re cheering you on, every step of the way!
Each of the new officers will be given their oath of office during a ceremony on Tuesday, Nov. 3 at the Antioch Police Facility, along with newly promoted Sergeant Zachary Sampson and Corporal Brandon Bushby.
Presented by Truth Bearer International Bay Area church in Antioch, One Warm Coat and Antioch Police Department
By Katrece Holloway, Truth Bearer International Bay Area
One Warm Coat Giveaway on Saturday, November 14th at Antioch City Park. Truth Bearer International (TBI) Bay Area church is an official partner with One Warm Coat and the Antioch Police Department will be helping us hand out hotdogs and coats.
TBI Bay Area is so excited to be giving back to our community through our members, co-workers, family, friends and local businesses. They have all helped us collect coats.
We are an official partner with One Warm Coat and we’re excited to bring the city of Antioch a coat giveaway from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or until most coats are gone. Our local Antioch Police Department will be joining us to hand out coats and hot dogs. We love our community!
Join us at Antioch City Park at the corner of W. 10th and A Streets. Come pray with us, grab some free coats and food!
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.
Back on Track Community Services and Reimagine Antioch announced the Sycamore Safe Center, opening at 1088 Sycamore Drive, Antioch. The center is intended to connect residents with community resources, educational workshops, workforce opportunities, life-skills training, family support, and partner organizations.
Opening: Saturday, October 31, 2026, from 1:00–5:00 p.m.
Who it serves: Antioch residents and families. The opening is all-ages; ongoing age or residency restrictions have not been published.
How to connect: Call Back on Track Community Services at (925) 658-8278 or use the opening registration page.
Referral use: The center should function as a neighborhood access point for resource navigation and referrals. Community organizations are also being invited to provide on-site outreach.
Not publicly stated yet: Regular operating hours, formal intake steps, eligibility documentation, appointment requirements, program capacity, and waitlist limits. The 1:00–5:00 p.m. hours apply only to the opening event, not ongoing services.
Volunteers needed. For more information contact Yvette Williams at (925) 658-8278 or yvette4hope@gmail.com.
Nilton Serva, a self-proclaimed former “streetpreneur” and now entrepreneur, and his brother Dean were arrested Oct. 18, 2026, for battery on a family member. Source: APD CitizenRIMS & Nilton Serva’s website.
The younger says he’s a two-time Deer Valley High drop-out who claims to have turned his life around after twice spending time in jail, and has gone from “‘streetpreneur’ to a real entrepreneur,” paid public speaker
By Allen D. Payton
According to the Antioch Police Department’s CitizenRIMS, two men with the same last name were arrested early Sunday, Oct. 18, 2026, for felony battery and one was also charged with misdemeanor obstructing or resisting a peace officer. The incident occurred at 1:52 AM in the 800 block of O Street.
Dean Jonathan Serva, age 30, is described as Hispanic, five-feet, six-inches tall and 175 pounds. He was charged with 243(d) Pc: Battery with serious bodily injury (F). His younger brother, Nilton Junior Serva, age 29, is also described as Hispanic, as well as five-feet, 10-inches tall and 290 pounds. He was also charged with243(d) Pc: Battery with serious bodily injury (F), as well as with 148(a)(1) Pc: Obstruct / resist / etc. a public or peace officer or emergency medical tech – simple (M). Case Number:26-10015.
At the same time and location, the CitizenRims Map shows a fight occurred and the disposition is described as report taken – felony and the call was closed at 7:55 AM
Both have the same Incident Number: 2610180021.
According to Antioch Police Lt. Bill Whitaker the felony battery was filed with the DA’s office, the two are brothers and the assault was against a family member but there were no major injuries.
Nilton Says He’s Gone From “‘Streetpreneur’ to a Real Entrepreneur” and Offers His Services as a Paid Public Speaker
A former Deer Valley High School student who says he dropped out twice, according to Nilton’s website about himself on which he provides details on his background, claims a “lifestyle shift from ‘streetpreneur’ to a real entrepreneur” and offers his services as a paid public speaker.
On the My Story page, Nilton shares that after dropping out of high school for a second time, he was first arrested at age 17 for residential burglary. After nine months in county jail and the Byron Boys Ranch, he was released. But he “could not find a job and got sucked back into his old ways. Within a couple of months, he got violated by his probation officer…was on house arrest for a month then he went back to court. He was sentenced to another 6-month program at Byron.”
While there, “He then focused on getting his high school credits and even got his high school equivalency there too,” Nilton’s story continues.
According to his LinkedIn profile, as of February this year Nilton is President of VC Unleashed, a global non‑profit for next‑generation investors, where he’s worked since June 2024, and since January this year he has also worked for San Francisco-based Finix in GTM (Go-To-Market) & Partnerships and has been an Angel Investor for Wefunder since January 2024.
In 2023, Nilton earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from UCLA.
Source: Nilton Serva’s website.
UCLA Magazine Article
He also offered details about his background in a 2024 article on the UCLA Magazine website in which Nilton wrote, “I changed at UCLA. Became more structured. Because the standards were high, I had a choice: Meet them, or quit. And there was no way I was going to quit. I got into the Social Enterprise Academy and the Benjamin Graham Value Investing Program. I spoke to venture capitalists, fund managers. My professors provided amazing guidance. I began to see my path.
“I got pretty emotional at graduation, thinking about it all: every little fight I’d had, every mistake I’d made. But I viewed all of that as just the first chapter of my story.
“I will take UCLA with me wherever I go. And because of it, I’ll continue to write better and better chapters of my life.”.
Efforts to reach Nilton via the email address on his website and LinkedIn were unsuccessful.
If you know him, please ask him or his brother to contact the Herald at (925) 457-5324 or editor@antiochherald.com. Then check back later for any updates to this report.
Plus, get tips and reminders for voting in the November 3rd General Election
By Dawn Kruger, Community and Media Relations Coordinator, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department
Regional Early Voting Sites open today, Friday, October 30th with convenient times to vote in-person, and polling places are open on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3rd from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
Voters can still return their ballots by mail, postmarked on or before Election Day – to ensure mailed ballots are received on time, voters mailing their ballots should go into the post office and ask for a postmark. To avoid stress and ensure the Elections office receives their ballot on time, voters can drop their ballot off at one of the County’s 43 official drop boxes before 8:00 PM on Election Day.
“We want Contra Costa Voters to know that they can vote their way with confidence,” said Kristin B. Connelly, the County’s Registrar of Voters. “The Elections office is here to ensure that your vote is counted and your voice is heard.”
In-Person Voter Services
If you prefer to vote in-person or need in-person services to cast your ballot, Contra Costa County residents have early voting options at five Regional Early Voting sites throughout the county.
All Contra Costa registered voters will be able to vote at any of the Regional Early Voting locations, which will be open Friday, October 30th from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM; Saturday, October 31st from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM; and Monday, November 2nd from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Here are the locations of Contra Costa’s Regional Early Voting sites:
Oakley Recreation Center, 1250 O’Hara Ave, Oakley
Pittsburg Library-Community Room, 80 Power Avenue, Pittsburg
Richmond Memorial Auditorium, 403 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond
San Ramon Valley United Methodist Church, 902 Danville Blvd., Alamo
Center for Community Arts Auditorium, 111 N Wiget Lane, Walnut Creek
Voters can also come to the Elections Office at 555 Escobar St in Martinez, Friday, October 30th from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Saturday October 31st from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Monday November 2nd from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and Election Day, Tuesday November 3rd from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
Polling Places
Polling places will be open on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3rd from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Please go to our website and check “My Voting Information.” to find your assigned polling place.
Conditional Voter Registration
If you missed the voter registration deadline, you can still register and vote in-person using Conditional Voter Registration. It is a one-stop opportunity to register and cast your ballot and is available (1) at our office at 555 Escobar St in Martinez, (2) at Regional Early Voting sites, and (3) at all polling places.
Accessible Voting Equipment and Additional Language Access
Official ballots and voting instructions are provided in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Additional language resources are available through ballot translation guides which are available online and at all in-person voting locations. Ballot marking equipment with accessible features is available at every in-person voting location for voters who may need assistance.
Be Prepared
If you vote in-person, many voters find it helpful to come prepared. Make your choices ahead of time and bring your pre-marked Sample Ballot to the polls to help you save time. Copies of the Voter Information Guide are available at the polls and the information is also available online.
No Electioneering within 100 Feet of Polling Place – Leave Campaign T-Shirts, Buttons and Hats at Home
Please remember that voters have the right to cast a ballot free from intimidation or distraction. Under California law, electioneering is prohibited within 100 feet of any voting location. Anyone wearing items promoting any position in this election will be asked to remove or cover them while they are at the voting location. Please help our poll workers by refraining from electioneering and leave your campaign t-shirts, buttons, and hats at home.
For more information on voting options for the November 3rd General Election, visit www.contracostavote.gov or call 925.335.7800.
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.
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.
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.
