☆ Dieguez: “what are taxpayers receiving for the taxes they already pay?”
In an Opportunity Now exclusive series, we’re asking local leaders what the November 2026 election tells us about where Silicon Valley and Bay Area are headed. Gregg Dieguez of Fixes Before Funding asks some uncomfortable questions:
It seems that affordability is the key issue, which couples with the burden of taxation and the quality of our governance. There are numerous reports and Grand Jury findings about waste at the State, Counties, Cities and Transit Agencies. These are occurring at a time when gas prices are approaching record levels and new regulations (limits on new home solar, bans on gas appliances, permitting and code changes) and housing mandates are pushing cities and residents toward a Fiscal Cliff not entirely of their own making. Add in reports about waste on the High Speed Rail project; more than $21 billion still owed to the federal government from California's Pandemic unemployment-insurance borrowing; nearly $24 billion in state spending on homelessness and housing affordability - accompanied by State Auditor findings that the state has not adequately tracked the cost-effectiveness or outcomes of many homelessness programs; State reserves now at 41%** of the levels two years prior; and residents are voicing extreme frustration with the governance in place.
There is tension between statewide and regional policy goals and local fiscal reality. California increasingly uses statewide mandates and policy objectives - housing production, environmental standards, energy policy, transportation policy, homelessness requirements, etc. while cities and counties are left dealing with much of the implementation and fiscal consequences. The MTC's Plan Bay Area 2050+, for example, left over 30 significant unmitigated impacts in the laps of local governments and agencies while proposing $1.5 Trillion in spending without clear offsetting benefits or funding for those initiatives.
The Bay Area Air District mandated a gas appliance ban without quantifying the regional cost - which is somewhere between $10 and $100 Billion - or considering other cost-effective alternatives to mitigate methane.
That creates important underlying questions:
How much can government require of households and local governments before the cumulative cost becomes itself an affordability problem?
What are taxpayers receiving for the taxes they already pay?
The emerging political question is not simply whether government should spend more or less, but whether Californians believe government is capable of converting spending into commensurate public benefits.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.