Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association

10/17/2026

Californians have already approved these limits twice, only to have courts erode the will of the electorate.

10/17/2026

As part of an ongoing Opportunity Now exclusive series  leading up to this fall’s election, we’re asking local leaders what bigger issues are shaping the region and the state. SHIFT-Bay Area President Gus Mattammal weighs in: 

10/16/2026

10/16/2026

Families & Homes, San Jose's leading citywide neighborhood advocacy group, contends that City staff is misreading the plain language of San Jose's Housing Element (state-mandated housing planning for current and future housing) in an effort to deliver an irreversible increa

10/15/2026

“Off the Rails” cites unjustified assumptions, unpublished data, undisclosed financial ties, no analysis of alternatives, and calls for transparent data and a full comparison of alternatives before voters are asked to approve billions in new taxes.

BAY AREA, Calif. - The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit today released Off the Rails, a 20-page technical assessment of Bumper to Bumper, the September 2026 SPUR report that projects severe Bay Bridge delays and added driving, if voters reject Measure RTM and San Francisco’s Proposition H. The two tax measures would raise roughly $1.37 billion a year. The new technical assessment finds that SPUR’s dramatic traffic projections rest on unvalidated behavioral assumptions and unpublished inputs - and that its conclusion that Measure RTM and San Francisco’s Proposition H are the only realistic and timely solutions is not supported by the SPUR report.

The assessment, “Off The Rails: A Technical Assessment of SPUR’s Bumper to Bumper Report,” reconstructs and evaluates calculations using SPUR’s published appendix and BART’s October 2025 ridership and origin-destination data. It does not claim that service cuts would have no traffic impact. Rather, it finds that SPUR’s estimates should be treated as an unverified scenario, not a reliable forecast nor proof that new taxes are the only option.

Key findings
· Expert Review of SPUR Report Concludes: “There are critical omissions – most notably a lack of sensitivity and alternatives analysis. It is unhelpful and misleading in predicting the impacts from the potential service cuts, and thus doesn’t make a good case in favor of the transit tax.”
- Professor Damian Park, Santa Clara University, Economics Dept
· SPUR’s conclusion is not supported by the analysis. SPUR does not test cost restructuring, fare changes, bus rapid transit, congestion pricing, employer or payroll funding, micro-transit, interagency use of existing cash, or how commuters and businesses would adapt.
· Financial ties were not disclosed. SPUR co-led the campaign supporting RTM, and the report’s author previously held campaign leadership and treasurer roles. Jacobs, the technical consultant, contributed $150,000 to the campaign and has approximately $122 million in authorized contracts and assigned work with regional transit agencies. These relationships create an appearance of bias and conflict of interest concerns.
· Critical assumptions are not validated. Among other unjustified inputs, assumed shifts from transit to driving - 56% at certain closed end-of-line stations, 30% at other closed stations, and 25% under frequency reductions - are not supported by disclosed calibration, data or sensitivity testing.
· Results cannot be independently reproduced. Among other omissions, the station-by-hour diversion matrix and the StreetLight traffic data underpinning the Bay Bridge traffic delay figures were not published.
· The “lowest-ridership stations” claim is inaccurate, and affects the results. SPUR claimed it modeled closing the 15 lowest ridership stations. However, the 15 stations SPUR selected recorded higher weekday boardings, worth roughly 25 - 35% more diverted trips.
· The financial analysis is incomplete. On a cash-flow basis, using the report’s own figures, the two taxes would cost residents about $1.2 billion per year more than not adopting them. The review notes this is not a net-welfare estimate, because the report does not value delays, emissions or lost service. SPUR provided no financial assessment of why cost per passenger-mile has risen about 159% since 2019, nor what the financial impacts of service cuts aside from SFMTA (Muni) would be on the operating deficits.

A major, regressive tax decision requires more than a worst-case scenario
“The central issue is not whether service cuts could affect traffic,” the assessment concludes. “It is whether the SPUR analysis supports the scale of the claims and proves that new taxes are the only realistic solution. It does not.”

The report calls for publication of the underlying data and calculations, independent review of the traffic analysis, and a comprehensive comparison of genuine alternatives - including operating-cost reforms and the use of existing agency financial resources - before voters are asked to approve additional large, long-term tax measures.

“Before asking residents to pay billions of dollars in extra taxes, decision-makers should demonstrate what the money will accomplish, examine why costs have risen, and compare the alternatives in services and technology.”

The Committee is also asking media to give this rebuttal the same coverage it gave the SPUR Bumper To Bumper report, and to retract any prior claims that the SPUR report was impartial or independent.

Read the report summary, and detail
“Off The Rails: A Technical Assessment of SPUR’s Bumper to Bumper Report” - [Download Full Report]

10/14/2026

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at Hoover.org. In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

10/14/2026

“Prop. 37 sets up a complicated program that does a little something, but not that much, for income-limited homebuyers, and a little something, but not that much, for housing developers who build or convert price-capped homes or…

10/14/2026

A deceptive ballot measure would funnel massive taxpayer funds to a single private medical institute.

10/13/2026

California Commentary
The truth about Prop. 43: Don’t fall for the fearmongering.
By Jon Coupal

As voting begins in this election season, it is a good time to start considering some of the more egregious lies being foisted on voters in campaign ads, editorials and op-eds.

Let’s start with what is being represented about Proposition 43, the effort to close a court-created loophole in Proposition 13. Prop. 43 protects taxpayers by restoring Prop. 13’s two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes, including sales taxes and parcel taxes. Courts have allowed special interests to pass earmarked tax increases with fewer votes. Prop. 43 closes this loophole, protecting taxpayers, homeowners and renters.

Note what Prop. 43 does not do. It does not cut any local taxes. It does not retroactively invalidate any existing tax. It does not limit any local governments from going to the voters for general tax increases, which pass with a simple majority vote. All that it does is restore the two-thirds vote for local special taxes – taxes imposed for a specific purpose.

Despite the negligible impact Prop. 43 would have on existing local government revenues, according to critics, Prop. 43 will result in the end of civilization. In an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News, the president of California Professional Firefighters, Darrell Roberts, claims that Prop. 43 “would place a nearly insurmountable roadblock from placing any measure on the ballot” to impose a special tax. What Mr. Roberts forgets is that the two-thirds vote for local special taxes was a provision of the California Constitution from 1978 until 2017 when the California courts began crafting an exception. During that time, rather than being an “insurmountable” barrier, special taxes were routinely enacted with the requisite two-thirds vote, including sales taxes and parcel taxes.

The argument that supermajority vote requirements are somehow “undemocratic” collapses when one considers the long history of America’s constitutional framework. There are no fewer than twelve instances in the U.S. Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote. These include impeachment; expelling a Member of Congress; overriding a veto; amending the Constitution (Congressional approval of a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 majority); calling a Constitutional Convention; and ratifying a treaty.

Here in California, the two-thirds vote requirement on matters related to taxation dates back to 1879. That was when the higher threshold was placed in the state constitution for local general obligation bonds as a protection against excessive debt at the local level, repaid by property owners. Recently, in the November 2024 election, California voters overwhelmingly rejected an effort to lower the two-thirds vote requirement for most local bonds to 55%. Prop. 5 lost by ten points.

What is revealing about the opposition to Prop. 43 is that most is coming from public sector labor organizations – the very interests who want to remove all barriers to higher taxes.

Hyperbolic support for tax increases is prevalent throughout the local level of government as well. Although not a statewide measure, a proposal to raise the sales taxes in five Bay Area counties to generate billions for failed transit systems has driven proponents of the tax to near madness in describing the parade of horribles if the tax fails in November. But this “Regional Transit Measure” has weak support notwithstanding a well-funded campaign to promote it. Voters are suspicious because the transit districts in question, especially BART, have done nothing to correct their failures and inefficiencies. Not surprisingly, Bay Area residents want at least some proof that the new revenue won’t be as misspent as existing revenue.

Despite the track record of waste and fraud, major Bay Area media outlets are fully in support of increasing sales taxes, which everyone admits are very regressive. The San Francisco Chronicle warns that, “without an immediate infusion of funds, Muni could be forced to cut service by at least 30%, cancel at least 20 bus routes, end regular evening service, eliminate cable car service and reduce fare discounts for vulnerable populations. BART could close 15 stations and reduce service by 70%. Caltrain could reduce service to one train per hour and stop service on weekends.”

The organization Fixes Before Funding disputes these dire predictions, noting, “Transit costs and subsidies have exploded while service shrank; when ridership and fare revenue collapsed, the agencies did not restructure; spending per rider has gone off the chart; ridership never recovered, and never grew the way planners promised; and, the signature projects ran over budget and under-delivered.”

A great deal of overstatement can be expected in any political contest, but when it comes to the predictions of disaster if more taxes are not forthcoming, voters would be well advised to ignore the hype.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

10/11/2026

Billion-dollar annual levy on sales would affect Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties.