Measure B Raises Serious Questions About Transparency and Trust

In a somewhat controversial fashion, the county has placed a sales tax increase on the June ballot even after being made aware its premise was flawed.

Measure B would increase Contra Costa County’s sales tax by 0.625%, immediately pushing Moraga’s combined rate to 10.375%.

And that may not be the end of it.

A separate regional transportation sales-tax proposal (frequently referred to as the "BART Bailout") expected this November could push the total even higher.

At some point, voters are entitled to ask a simple question:

How much is enough?

A Tax Increase Based on Questionable Numbers

This measure has been deeply flawed from the beginning — not simply because it raises taxes, but because of the manner in which it was developed, justified, and presented to voters.

Most concerning: the core financial rationale used to sell the measure was dramatically overstated.

County officials initially described the situation as involving more than $300 million per year in losses.

In reality, that figure was not annual at all.

It was a cumulative multi-year estimate.

From "Hundreds of Millions Per Year" to a Much Smaller Reality

Supervisor Candace Andersen identified the discrepancy publicly during the Board discussion. County staff then revised the language the very same day the measure was approved for the ballot — reducing the figure from what sounded like a multi-billion-dollar crisis to roughly $239 million cumulative through 2029.

That distinction matters.

A projected loss of more than $300 million every single year suggests an emergency approaching $1.5 billion over five years.

A cumulative figure closer to $239 million through 2029 is an entirely different discussion.

Yet despite the correction, the measure proceeded anyway.

And the problems didn’t stop there.

A Judge Forced Changes to the Ballot Language

A Superior Court judge later ordered the county to revise the official ballot language after determining portions were argumentative and improperly framed to encourage a “yes” vote.

That alone should concern voters.

Ballot language is supposed to neutrally describe a measure — not function as campaign advertising.

This Is a General Tax - Not Dedicated Healthcare Funding

Measure B is also structured as a general tax.

Despite the heavy focus on healthcare and hospital messaging in promotional materials, the revenue is not legally restricted to those purposes and can ultimately be used broadly within county government.

Supporters portray the measure as an urgent response to sudden federal cuts.

But even county documents and timelines suggest a far more complicated picture — with many of the cited funding changes delayed, phased in over time, previously known, or still uncertain.

Voters Being Asked to Decide Before Full Impacts Are Even Known

Meanwhile, taxpayers are being asked to approve a tax increase that would begin collecting before many of the projected impacts even occur.

Reasonable people can disagree about taxation and public spending priorities.

But voters should not be pressured into approving higher taxes using inflated numbers, emotionally loaded ballot language, and worst-case financial scenarios that later require correction.

Trust Matters

Even supporters of county healthcare services should be troubled by how this measure was constructed and marketed.

The math was wrong or misrepresented, and then changed only when discovered during a board meeting.

The ballot language had to be rewritten by court order.

The measure remained on the ballot anyway.

That alone is reason enough to vote no.

For Even More Information

East Bay Times Editorial says "NO": click here

Extensive review of the numbers, timelines, court rulings, and county documents, an extensive FAQ and analysis is available at: StopMeasureB.com