More details on the highly critical city auditor's report of #SanDiego's streetlight repair efforts. “There is extensive evidence of significant operational inefficiencies and a lack of accountability within the program,” (City Auditor) Hanau said Monday. “Taken together, these problems are leading to a waste of taxpayer dollars, contributing to the growing streetlight repair backlog, and delaying responses to resident requests for streetlight maintenance.” sandiegouniontribune.com/202… The audit report is online. sandiego.gov/auditor/reports

The city auditor has released a deeply critical assessment of #SanDiego’s streetlight repair program. The bottom line: “Streetlight service levels declined despite increased staffing, labor hours, and overtime” sandiego.gov/auditor/reports…

North County cities did relatively well in the SD Taxpayers 2026 Municipal Report Card. The city of #SanDiego did not. "San Diego, the county’s largest city, also earned an F. "The report shows the city failed in Fiscal Health and earned a C+ combined in Accountability & Transparency. "San Diego was one of two cities to fail the reserve benchmark and continues to face a projected structural budget deficit, two of the factors weighing heavily on its score." ncpipeline.substack.com/p/sd… Unfortunately, San Diego's situation cannot be expected to improve, at least in the near term. The city's Independent Budget Analyst will report to council today that "reduced budgetary margins and flexibility from addressing the persistent structural budget deficit" has led to the need to draw down general fund reserves. sandiego.gov/city-clerk/offi…

The city of #SanDiego Department of Finance will present the "Fiscal Year 2026 Year-End Financial Performance Report" to the city council at the October 26 meeting. The report will highlight the deteriorating position of the city's cash reserves. sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211…

The Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) will provide additional analysis of the "Fiscal Year 2026 Year-End Financial Performance Report" at the October 26 meeting. One key finding: for the first time in recent history #SanDiego has drawn from its general fund reserve due to higher-than-expected expenditures and lower than expected revenue. The IBA analysis will include the implications of the city's increasingly fragile financial position. sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211…

SD Taxpayers has recommendations and policy papers on all five #California tax measures on the November ballot. NO on Props 3 and 40 YES on Props 41, 42 and 43 ___________________________________________________ O P P O S E Proposition 3 (the California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act) would permanently remove the 2030 expiration date from the top-bracket income tax surcharge voters approved as temporary in 2012 and extended in 2016. Permanence forecloses a tax-rate reduction already scheduled under current law, it deepens the state's reliance on a small and unusually volatile group of filers who supply roughly half of all personal income tax revenue, and it removes the state's ability to revisit that rate structure without returning to the voters. ___________________________________________________ O P P O S E Prop 40 (One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food Assistance Programs Initiative) would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of Californians worth more than $1 billion and direct most of the revenue to state health care programs. Three structural problems drive the position: a one-time, asset-price-dependent revenue source is pledged against ongoing Medi-Cal obligations, the tax base is concentrated in roughly 200 highly mobile taxpayers, and unresolved valuation and legal questions could delay or reduce what the measure actually collects. ___________________________________________________ S U P P O R T Proposition 41 (Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act) would require the State Auditor to review any program a proposed state special tax would fund before voters decide on it, with recurring audits afterward, and would bar new state taxes from being exempted from the state's spending limit. SD Taxpayers supports the measure as an extension to state government of the same audit and oversight standards it applies to local tax and bond measures. ___________________________________________________ S U P P O R T Proposition 42 (Retirement & Personal Savings Protection Act) would constitutionally prohibit new state taxes on retirement accounts, savings, and other personal property, along with certain retroactive state taxes. SD Taxpayers supports the measure for the planning certainty it gives households, consistent with its long-standing skepticism of wealth and net-worth taxation on administrability and capital-flight grounds. ___________________________________________________ S U P P O R T Proposition 43 (Local Taxes Limitation) would require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes proposed by citizen initiative — the same threshold that already applies when a city, county, or district places one on the ballot. The support rests on equal treatment rather than on any prediction about tax levels, and the gap it closes is not hypothetical: roughly two dozen local special taxes have been enacted statewide by simple majority since a 2017 court decision opened it. sdtaxpayers.org/policyreport… sdtaxpayers.org/tracker inewsource.org/2026/10/23/ta…

Nominations for the 30th Annual SD Taxpayers Golden Fleece and Golden Watchdog Awards are open. There are plenty of potential nominees for the Golden Fleece Award: #NationalCity's counterproductive Cannabis Tax xitter.cf/sdcta/status/211363023… The City of #SanDiego mayor and council for failing rein in spending xitter.cf/sdcta/status/211291360… #SANDAG for failing to address ongoing accountability failures and management issues. xitter.cf/sdcta/status/211073709… docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F…

There are three large California bond measures on the November ballot. Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, would borrow $11.25 billion for housing, $10 billion of it in general obligation bonds repaid from the General Fund at roughly $580 million a year for three decades. SD Taxpayers opposes the measure because the state is carrying a structural deficit, and the bond's own self-supporting CalVet component demonstrates that these goals can be financed without adding General Fund debt. sdtaxpayers.org/policy-repor… Proposition 37 would establish a $25 billion CalHFA program offering middle-income buyers a second mortgage of up to 17 percent of a home's purchase price, financed by revenue bonds that borrowers themselves repay. SD Taxpayers supports the measure because the Legislative Analyst's Office found no direct cost to state or local government, expanding homeownership without adding taxpayer-backed debt. SD Taxpayers has no formal position on Proposition 38, which would borrow $8.4 billion for immunology Research, but it is opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association arguing that that cost should not be borne by California taxpayers . . . viable research can be funded by pharmaceutical companies, foundations and the federal government." hjta.org/2026votingguide/#Ba… calmatters.org/politics/elec…

"Question: Is the Wave proposal for Del Mar Fairgrounds a good fit? Mark Kersey, San Diego County Taxpayers Association NO: Activating some of the massive parking lot at the fairgrounds is absolutely worthy of discussion. However, it’s far from clear that our region needs another convention center and professional soccer stadium. Ideally, the Wave will be able to work out their scheduling issues at Snapdragon and remain in Mission Valley for years to come." sandiegouniontribune.com/202…

U P D A T E El Cajon in fact received a C-. We apologize for the error.

"Proponents say Prop. 2 would allow the state to shore up its reserves for an economic downturn. Critics say it would only allow state leaders to spend more in the future." One of those critics is SD Taxpayers. Proposition 2 would exclude reserve deposits from the state's voter-approved spending limit. Because that exclusion applies in precisely the high-revenue years when the limit would otherwise return money to taxpayers, SD Taxpayers opposes the measure. sdtaxpayers.org/policy-repor…