Why I Support Measure R and the Accountability It Must Bring
Updated: Sep 29
A public tax measure should never be treated like a blank check. That is exactly why I support Measure R, and why I believe strong accountability must come with it from day one.
Measure R is a 0.00375 transactions-and-use tax. In plain terms, that adds 18.75 cents to a $50.00 purchase. It is estimated to generate about $1 million per year for 10 years.
That is not a small amount of money. It is also not an unreasonable cost if the revenue is used well.
My support for Measure R comes down to a practical question: can a modest, time-limited tax help fund real community needs without becoming another vague promise? I believe it can. But support should come with conditions. Voters deserve clear priorities, public reporting, independent oversight, and proof that the money is doing what supporters say it will do.
Measure R is modest, but the revenue is meaningful
The size of the tax matters. A 0.00375 rate equals 0.375%. On a $50.00 purchase, that comes to 18.75 cents. For many routine purchases, the added cost would be measured in cents, not dollars.
That does not mean the tax is painless for everyone. Every cost matters, especially for households already watching every grocery bill, gas fill-up, school supply run, and utility payment. Supporters should not dismiss that. A few cents at a time can still feel frustrating when life is expensive.
But the public also has to weigh cost against value.
If Measure R brings in about $1 million annually, that is roughly $10 million over 10 years if projections hold. For a local community, that kind of money can make a real difference. It can close funding gaps. It can keep basic services from sliding backward. It can pay for repairs before they become more expensive emergencies.
The key word is can.
A tax measure only deserves support if the public can see a direct line between the money collected and the results delivered. The tax should not disappear into a general fund fog where residents hear about needs during campaign season and see little detail afterward.
That is where accountability becomes the whole argument.
Keep the money local
If Pacific Grove does not impose this sales tax, another taxing authority like Monterey County can impose it, and the money leaves Pacific Grove. We can pay the tax and spend the money here, or we can pay the tax and the money gets spent outside of PG.
Our visitors will pay as much or more of this tax as our residents
Of the $1,000,000 raised every year, it is estimated that our visitors will contribute at least $500,000 towards it, and possibly more. Our visitors use our infrastructure so it's only fair that they help pay for it. A sales tax relieves the burden of our residents from paying the entire amount through property taxes.
Why I think Measure R is worth supporting
I support Measure R because the structure appears reasonable: a small tax, a defined revenue estimate, and a 10-year period. That time limit matters. It gives the community a chance to fund needs without making the measure permanent by default.
Public needs rarely arrive all at once. Streets wear down year after year—facilities age. Emergency equipment needs replacement. Parks, drainage systems, sidewalks, and public spaces do not repair themselves. Staff costs rise. Materials get more expensive. Deferred maintenance becomes a hidden debt. Deferred maintenance is more expensive than timely maintenance. Deferred maintenance is political cowardice.
When communities refuse every revenue option, the work does not vanish. It gets delayed. Delayed work often costs more later.
A pothole that could have been patched becomes a larger road repair. A roof leak becomes structural damage. Outdated equipment becomes a service delay. Small problems grow because no one wanted to pay for the boring maintenance when it was still manageable.
Measure R gives the community a chance to be proactive instead of reactive.
That is the strongest case for supporting it. Not excitement. Not politics. Not slogans. Just basic stewardship.
A tax that costs 18.75 cents on a $50.00 purchase can still raise about $1 million a year when spread across many transactions. That is why small rates deserve serious scrutiny and serious management.
The measure should be judged by whether it helps protect and improve shared services in a visible, measurable way. If it does, the cost is fair. If it does not, public trust will erode quickly.
Support for Measure R should not mean blind trust
Accountability should not be treated as a burden. It is what makes public spending legitimate.
At minimum, Measure R should come with several commitments.
A public spending plan should come first
Before revenue starts flowing, there should be a clear spending plan. It does not need to predict every invoice for 10 years, but it should identify major priorities.
That plan should answer basic questions:
What types of projects or services are eligible?
Which needs are highest priority?
How will leaders decide what gets funded first?
What costs are one-time and what costs repeat every year?
What happens if revenue is higher or lower than expected?
City Council creates the budget based on several criteria: City staff recommendations, financial ability, urgency, grants, timing, and public input. It is an open public process, and I urge residents to be a part of this process by commenting online, on Zoom during meetings, and commenting in person at meetings. There are always items on the budget list that are not able to be funded, and deciding what to fund or not to fund is a partnership between Council and residents.
Annual reports should be easy to read
Measure R would generate about $1 million annually. Every year, the public should see where that money went.
Not in a dense report that only budget experts can understand. Not buried in meeting packets. Not summarized in vague lines like “community improvements” or “public services.”
A useful annual report should include:
Total revenue collected
Total spending by category
Specific projects or services funded
Project status updates
Money carried over to future years
Changes from the original plan
Reasons for delays or cost changes
If a road project costs more than expected, say so. If a facility repair came in under budget, say so. If revenue falls short, explain what gets delayed and why.
Plain language builds trust and Pacific Grove has been awarded the prestigious Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). This is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting in North America. To receive the certificate, the city's Annual Budget & Financial Reports had to satisfy GAAP standards and demonstrate a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate Pacific Grove's financial story. Pacific Grove has maintained a multi-year streak, securing the Financial Reporting Excellence Award for seven years and the GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for four years.
The main concern deserves a serious answer
The strongest argument against Measure R is simple: people are tired of paying more.
That concern is fair. Prices have risen across everyday life. Even a small tax can feel like one more charge added to an already long list. Some residents will ask why government cannot simply make do with existing revenue. Others will worry that new money will reduce pressure to manage current funds carefully.
Those are not anti-community questions. They are responsible questions.
My answer is that support for Measure R should come with a demand for discipline. New revenue should not excuse waste. It should not cover poor planning. It should not allow leaders to avoid hard choices.
At the same time, cutting alone is not always a serious plan. Communities can trim, delay, defer, and stretch resources only so far. If the needs are real and the costs are rising, then a modest, time-limited revenue source may be the more honest option.
The better question is not whether taxes are good or bad in the abstract. The better question is whether this tax is proportional to the need, limited in duration, transparent in use, and accountable to the public.
For me, Measure R meets the first test. The rate is modest. The revenue estimate is meaningful. The 10-year window creates a natural point for review.
Now it must meet the second test: governance.
What accountability should look like over the full 10 years
Accountability cannot be a campaign promise that fades after the election. Measure R should be managed with a 10-year public record that any resident can follow.
That means three things.
The public should see progress, not just spending
Spending money is not the same as solving problems. Reports should show outcomes where possible.
If money goes to streets, what improved? If it funds equipment, what service gap did that address? If it pays for repairs, what risk or cost did the repair prevent? If a project is delayed, what caused the delay?
Not every benefit can be measured perfectly. Some public services are hard to reduce to a single number. Still, leaders can describe progress in specific terms.
Residents should not have to guess whether Measure R is working.
The measure should not become a backdoor blank check
The 10-year period should be respected. If leaders later believe the tax should continue, they should make that case openly to voters when the time comes. The public should not be pressured with vague warnings or rushed decisions.
A sunset date is a promise. It says, “Give us this tool for this period, then judge the results.”
That promise should matter.
Mistakes should be acknowledged quickly
Every long-term public effort will face problems. Costs change. Priorities shift. Emergencies happen. Revenue estimates miss the mark.
The public can accept course corrections when leaders explain them honestly. What damages trust is silence, spin, or defensiveness.
If Measure R passes and a project falls behind, say why. If the community needs to revise priorities, hold that conversation in public. If spending choices did not produce the expected result, admit it and adjust.
Accountability is not about pretending every decision will be perfect. It is about making sure mistakes are visible, corrected, and not repeated.
My yes vote comes with expectations
I support Measure R because I believe a small, temporary transactions-and-use tax can help fund real needs at a reasonable cost. Adding 18.75 cents to a $50.00 purchase is not nothing, but it is a modest contribution if the community receives clear, visible value in return.
That support is not unconditional.
The public should expect:
A clear spending plan before funds are committed
Annual reports that people can actually understand
Project-level transparency showing what was funded and what changed
Respect for the 10-year limit and an honest review before any future extension
Measure R should be supported because it can help. It should be watched closely because public money always belongs to the public.
A yes vote should not mean “do whatever you want.” It should mean, “Use this money well, show your work, and prove that the trust was earned.”
Comments