Kiran's position · Measure II

I would have opposed Measure II.

In 2024 the City Council asked voters to loosen Dublin's 2014 open-space protections so commercial development could go on the Crosby property east of the city, owned by Livbor-Manning LLC, to help pay for the $153.6 million Dublin Boulevard extension. A city-commissioned financial study projected about 1.2 million square feet of warehouses and distribution centers there. The council voted 3–2 to place it on the ballot, with then–Vice Mayor Sherry Hu, Jean Josey and Janine Thalblum voting yes. The “Yes on II” committee, Keep Dublin Moving, raised $122,500, and about $97,500 of it came from two developers: Livbor-Manning LLC ($49,500) and Bex Development LLC ($48,000).

It skipped the rules. In November 2025, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Michael Markman ordered Dublin to repeal Measure II because the city put it on the ballot without the environmental review state law requires. City attorneys argued the environmental impacts were too speculative to study, even though the city’s own Keyser Marston financial analysis had already estimated what developing the land would bring in. The judge rejected that argument. Save Mount Diablo, which sued along with Friends of Livermore, called it “the deceptive Measure II.” In February the council voted 3–2 not to appeal; Mayor Hu and Vice Mayor Josey voted to keep fighting in court. Voters deserved a complete, lawful proposal, and they didn't get one.

Livermore warned us, and Dublin taxpayers get the bill. The day before the council vote, Livermore Mayor John Marchand wrote to Dublin: “I must say I was shocked with how misleading this item is.” He called the name “Dublin Open Space Initiative” cynical “since it eliminates the open space,” objected to “the pandering statement ‘at no cost to the voters,’” and wrote that if the land is annexed, “Livermore’s contribution to the road will be zero.” That was a share estimated at $27.5 million. A second City of Livermore letter added that Dublin would carry the full cost of building and maintaining the road, and that Livermore was “open to exploring property acquisition with Mr. Crosby” to keep the land as open space. A preservation deal was on the table. Dublin chose development instead. Read both letters (City of Dublin staff report, July 16, 2024, pp. 72–77).

“Not one penny” was a promise no one could guarantee. The official ballot argument for Measure II told voters it “does NOT cost Dublin taxpayers one penny.” But the plan depended on traffic-impact fees from up to 1.2 million square feet of warehouses that didn’t exist yet, with grants to cover any gap. If that development stalled or the market turned, Dublin would still own the road, and after annexation, Livermore’s $27.5 million share and all future maintenance too. Read the ballot argument.

The 911 promise needs proof. The ballot argument said Measure II would “provide a faster route for 911 emergency vehicles.” Fire Station 18 already sits on Fallon Road, so the city should publish response-time modeling comparing today’s roads with the extension, along with a fiscal analysis showing whether new development would cover the police, fire and medical calls it adds. And before any construction, residents should know which developer payments are legally binding, when they come due, and whether the road waits until funding is secured. Dublin fire stations

It's the wrong priority. Trading our last open space between Dublin and Livermore for warehouse-scale development, to fund a four-to-six-lane road I believe will pull I-580 traffic onto our streets, isn't smart growth.

It raises safety questions no one has answered. In July 2025, masked thieves took nearly $12,000 in merchandise from Dick’s Sporting Goods at Fallon Gateway, right where the extension would begin, then eluded police on I-580. Before Dublin adds a new four-to-six-lane route out of that same area, I want our police and traffic planners to weigh in publicly.

The road never needed Measure II. Dublin’s 2014 Open Space Initiative already allowed an arterial road connecting Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway, as the city’s own staff report acknowledges. Measure II was about something else: opening the land beside that road to warehouse development to pay for it. The court threw out the measure, but city officials have said planning for the extension continues.

Residents have a say if the city tries again. Any new annexation or zoning plan needs a full environmental review, and residents can comment on it and challenge it in court if the city skips steps, as Save Mount Diablo and Friends of Livermore did. Under state law, voters can force a referendum on a new council ordinance by gathering signatures from 10% of registered voters within 30 days of its adoption. And any annexation must be approved by Alameda County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), where residents can testify. City staff report · planning continues (Diya TV)

What I'd do instead: review the environmental impact first, settle open-space protection before any annexation talks, make the costs public, publish the alternatives considered, with measurable goals for congestion, neighborhood traffic, pedestrian safety and long-term maintenance cost, before any vote, and put residents' streets and safety ahead of a developer's timeline.

Sources: court ruling · council vote · Livermore letter & project details (Pleasanton Weekly) · council vote & financial study (Save Mount Diablo) · road design (Alameda CTC) · Yes on II funding (Pleasanton Weekly) · “too speculative” argument (The Independent) · Dick’s theft (Pleasanton Weekly)

Kiran's position · Measure JJ

I would have opposed Measure JJ’s term-limit extension.

Measure JJ was sold as the “Government Accountability Act.” It did add three ethics rules: no gifts from lobbyists or city contractors, no lobbyists on city commissions, and city contracts posted online. But it also raised the limit on how long future officeholders can serve on the council and as mayor from 8 consecutive years to 12. The ballot question disclosed it, but the measure’s name, the “Government Accountability Act,” did not.

The bundling was deliberate. When the council discussed the measure in November 2023, the city attorney said straight term-limit extensions usually fail in California, and pointed to cities where pairing them with accountability rules got them passed. The council then voted 3–2 to put it on the ballot. Then-Mayor Melissa Hernandez, Michael McCorriston and Kashef Qaadri voted yes; Sherry Hu and Jean Josey voted no. Even Councilmember Qaadri, who voted yes, called the accountability items a mask for the extension. And after the election, city officials confirmed Dublin already followed the transparency rules in the measure before the council ever voted on it. Much of the “accountability” package put into law what the city was already doing; the term-limit extension was the biggest new change.

Independent reviewers saw it too. The Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Association rated the ballot language below average and called the measure “particularly deceptive.” No one filed an argument in favor of it.

My opponents still defend it. At the Diya TV candidate forum this fall, both Michael McCorriston and Mayor Sherry Hu supported the longer 12-year limit. McCorriston said officials need time to gain experience. I argued that the measure’s title obscured the term-limit change. Longer terms may be a reasonable debate, but it deserves its own vote. Seventy-six percent approved the package; no one can say how many supported each piece.

One vote, several different questions. Measure JJ raises questions about how Dublin approaches government ethics, transparency and political accountability. It is important to distinguish between reforms the City Council could have adopted on its own and those that required voter approval. The central question is why these provisions were combined into a single ballot measure rather than considered separately. Residents deserve to understand the legal reasoning behind that decision, the practical effect of each provision, and whether combining them limited voters’ ability to express different preferences on individual issues. Meaningful accountability requires more than adopting ethics rules. It requires explaining how those rules were developed, who they affect, and how their effectiveness will be measured.

What I’d do: keep the ethics rules, which are worth having, and give Dublin voters a clean, standalone vote on whether to return to an 8-year limit. If the council won’t, residents can put it on the ballot themselves through a citizen initiative.

Sources: council vote, city attorney & grand jury rating (Pleasanton Weekly) · results & existing practices (Pleasanton Weekly) · ballot documents (City of Dublin) · forum (Diya TV)

Kiran's position · Measure I

Measure I: what are Dublin taxpayers being asked to fund?

I'm skeptical of Measure I. I want Dublin schools fully supported, but families deserve to know exactly what this tax pays for before committing to a larger tax that rises every year for nine years. Here is what Measure I does, and the questions I think the school district should answer before November 3.

What it does. Measure I raises the school parcel tax from $96 to $144 a year starting July 1, 2027, adjusts it every year for Bay Area inflation, and runs through June 30, 2036. It is expected to raise about $2.9 million a year for teacher recruitment and retention, class sizes, student wellness and instructional materials, and it cannot pay administrators' salaries. Seniors and low-income residents with disabilities can apply for exemptions, and an independent oversight committee and annual audits are required. It needs a two-thirds vote. The school board placed it on the ballot 4–1, with Trustee Gabi Blackman voting no. The argument in favor was signed by Vice Mayor Kashef Qaadri and former mayor Tim Sbranti, and no argument against it was filed.

The inflation escalator compounds. Each year's rate is the previous year's rate multiplied by the change in Bay Area inflation, so increases build on each other. As an illustration, if inflation averaged 3% a year, the $144 rate in 2027–28 would reach about $182 by the final year, 2035–36, and a parcel would pay roughly $1,460 over the nine years, compared with $864 at today's $96.

If it fails, the current tax doesn't disappear. The existing $96 tax stays in effect through June 2028. The district says losing the increase would mean about $2 million a year in additional cuts.

Why the questions matter. In December 2025, DUSD disclosed that its adopted budget had overstated vacancy savings by about $3.6 million, an error the superintendent said was not caught before the budget was adopted. The district said it added stronger internal review controls. The error helped push the 2026–27 reduction target to about $8.4 million, and the district has pointed to more than $6.6 million in previously approved cuts. Dublin teachers went on strike in March 2026 before settling on a 2.3% raise, smaller class sizes and a phased-in increase in health coverage through 2028. During that contract dispute, the teachers' union pointed out that the district had budgeted $11.6 million for consultants and professional services in the prior year and spent nearly $13 million.

Is it paying for a plan the district can sustain? Most of any school district's budget goes to people: salaries, health care and pensions, set through contracts the district negotiates with its employee groups. The March 2026 teacher contract raises the district's share of health premiums in steps, to 85% in July 2026, 90% in January 2027 and 100% in January 2028, right as Measure I's higher rate would begin in July 2027. Measure I can't pay administrators, but money is fungible: if parcel-tax dollars pay for teaching positions the general fund used to cover, that frees general-fund money for other uses. That isn't misuse, and nothing I've seen shows funds being spent improperly. It does mean the measure's spending rules alone can't show whether the overall budget is on solid footing; voters need the district-wide picture.

Three questions every Dublin voter can ask.

1. Tax structure. Why combine a 50% rate increase with an annual inflation escalator for nine years, instead of one or the other, or a shorter term with a check-in? Is there a cap on the yearly adjustment?

2. Budget transparency. What caused the more than $6.6 million in previously approved reductions, and what alternatives did the district weigh? Have the new budget controls been independently reviewed, and are the results public? How much is DUSD spending on consultants and outside services today? And will the district publish multi-year forecasts of salary, health and pension costs against revenue and enrollment, showing the budget with and without Measure I?

3. Measurable results. How will residents know whether the extra money improves staffing, class sizes and student services? Which programs would it restore, and when? And what did the current $96 tax deliver? Its yearly spending reports and oversight committee findings should be easy for any resident to find.

It all comes down to one question: what specific financial and educational results would Measure I deliver beyond what the existing parcel tax already supports, and how could the public independently verify them?

What I'd do. The mayor doesn't run the school district, but the city and DUSD share the same families. Whichever way Measure I goes, I'll push for a joint city–school budget conversation in public, plain-language reporting on how parcel tax dollars are spent, and city partnerships on youth wellbeing, safe routes to school and after-school programs that don't depend on a new tax. This one is your call.

Sources: Pleasanton Weekly, Oct 14, 2026 · Pleasanton Weekly, Dec 9, 2025 · The Independent, DUSD budget deficits · The Independent, teachers' strike settlement

Kiran's position · Measure RTM

I’m skeptical of Measure RTM, but this is your call.

Measure RTM would add a 0.5% sales tax in Alameda County for 14 years, raising about $1 billion a year across five counties for BART, AC Transit, Caltrain, Muni and others. BART estimates its share at about $310 million a year starting in 2028.

The stakes are real. BART faces a structural deficit of $350–400 million a year. Its board voted 8–1 to adopt a backup plan if no new money arrives: starting January 2027, trains every 30 minutes, service ending at 9 p.m. and fares up 30%. By mid-2027, up to 15 stations could close. An early staff draft included both West Dublin/Pleasanton and Dublin/Pleasanton, though the board sent that list back for revision.

But the Tri-Valley has heard promises before. In 2018 the BART board voted 5–4 against extending BART to Livermore. And even if RTM passes, BART still expects shortfalls of at least $45 million a year. Before asking for more, regional agencies should show Tri-Valley taxpayers what reforms come with the money, not just what cuts come without it.

BART’s own budget shows the problem. In 2019, fares and parking covered 68% of BART’s operating costs. Today they cover about a third. Labor and benefits are about $804 million of BART’s $1.06 billion operating budget, and overtime is budgeted to rise 6%, to $84.3 million. Yet the adopted budget makes only $18.2 million in ongoing cuts; most of this year’s gap is closed with one-time moves like borrowing and deferred capital spending. Without new money, BART projects about $1.8 billion in operating deficits through 2031. Its budget already counts on RTM passing, and even then it projects a gap of about $58 million in 2028. New taxes can buy time, but ridership and lasting reforms are what make transit work.

What independent reviewers found. In May 2026, the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury found that BART’s labor contracts include minimum staffing tied to physical locations rather than ridership, and recommended reviewing them. BART responded that only one of its five contracts has such rules, covering about 11% of its workforce, and called it worth considering in future agreements. To be fair, MTC’s independent efficiency review also found BART cut $516 million in operating costs from 2020 to 2025. The open questions are what comes next: why overtime keeps rising, why employee medical costs are budgeted up 17% this year, and what lasting reforms come with the new money. Grand jury report · BART on the MTC review

Oversight has been a struggle before. In 2022, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury found that BART’s board and management had engaged in “a pattern of obstruction” toward the agency’s own independent inspector general, a finding BART’s board rejected. The inspector general later left early, citing ongoing challenges with the board and management. That predates former Dublin Mayor Melissa Hernandez, who joined BART’s board in 2024, represents Dublin and the Tri-Valley, and is its 2026 board president. Dublin residents deserve to hear from her how BART’s oversight has changed since: what authority the inspector general has today, which past findings BART has acted on, and what public reporting will come with new tax money. KQED on the inspector general · Hernandez elected board president (The Independent)

Is Alameda County’s share fair? Under the measure’s spending plan, 64.70% of the new tax raised in Alameda County goes to BART operations. In Santa Clara County, 84.37% goes to VTA, its own local agency, and Santa Clara’s two BART stations, Milpitas and Berryessa, are run by VTA and considered unlikely to be affected if the measure fails. Those numbers alone don’t prove Alameda is subsidizing anyone. A sales tax also means every Dublin shopper pays, including residents who never ride BART, while riders from outside the five counties pay fares but not the tax. Dublin residents deserve to know whether what we pay matches the BART service we get.

Questions every Tri-Valley voter deserves answered. How much of the money comes back to Tri-Valley service? Which routes and stations does it actually protect? What other cuts, operating changes or revenue sources did BART weigh before putting station closures in its plan? If RTM fails, what quantified savings or labor concessions would BART and its unions put on the table to keep trains running? And has BART published how each proposed cut would affect ridership and fare revenue, so voters can see how much service it must keep to remain useful enough to ride? What service standards, like on-time trains, safe stations and cost per trip, will be published and tracked? The measure creates an oversight committee appointed by county supervisors and requires efficiency reviews of BART and other operators. Will those reviews be public, and will they have teeth? How will labor, overtime and administrative costs be monitored? How was the federal pandemic relief spent before this new ask? The Yes campaign, Connect Bay Area Transit, has reported more than $7.5 million in contributions, with transit unions and construction groups among its backers alongside large corporations and wealthy donors (tally of county filings, compiled by the No campaign). How does the measure’s spending line up with its funders’ interests? Reliable transit needs funding, but public trust depends on transparent spending and measurable results.

The case for Yes, in fairness. Supporters say transit is essential public infrastructure, not a business expected to run on fares alone. Without new money, BART’s adopted backup plan cuts service hours by more than half, and fewer trains would drive away riders and deepen the hole. BART says it would have to cut service 65% to 85% just to save 20% to 40% of costs, because so much of running a rail system is fixed. For the Tri-Valley, BART keeps cars off I-580 and I-680 and protects decades of public investment. Supporters agree oversight needs strengthening, but argue reforms should come with the funding rather than in place of it.

What I’d do: Funding can keep a transit system running. It cannot, by itself, make that system worth riding. Some of BART’s lost ridership reflects remote work no agency can undo, but the rest depends on frequency, reliability, safety and getting people somewhere they want to go. So I’d build a downtown Dublin people actually want to ride to, because ridership is what makes transit work. I’d also ask BART to commit to measurable improvements in frequency, reliability and safety, and report publicly on whether they’re working. I’d press for accountability to Tri-Valley riders on every regional board. And if RTM fails, I’d go after state and federal grants for newer, lower-cost options, including autonomous rail.

A Dublin transit plan, either way. Whatever happens to RTM, Dublin should design the local network people will actually use. I’d start with a door-to-door travel study: where residents really go, why they drive, and which changes would cut their trip times. That points toward frequent neighborhood shuttles and Wheels buses feeding BART and job centers, bus-priority lanes instead of wider roads, safe walking and biking routes to stations, and employer partnerships for commuter service. These won’t replace BART’s 2027 cuts if RTM fails, but they’re how Dublin stops depending on a single train line to get around.

Sources: BART contingency plan & deficit (Pleasanton Weekly) · BART funding factsheet (BART) · FY27 adopted budget (BART) · 8–1 board vote (Antioch Herald) · 2018 Livermore vote (Planetizen) · measure details (KQED) · full measure text & spending plan (Contra Costa Elections) · Santa Clara stations (San José Spotlight)