The most troubling aspect of the current Measure Z extension campaign is not the debate over taxes itself — it is the continued use of fear as a political weapon. When elected officials and their allies repeatedly push “vote for this tax or people will die” narratives, they are not engaging in responsible governance. They are using emotional coercion because they lack confidence in their actual record of leadership, budgeting, and long-term planning.

Fear is not a fiscal strategy.

The reality is simple: many municipalities throughout California and across the nation provide better streets, better parks, better infrastructure, stronger public safety outcomes, and a higher quality of life with lower sales taxes and without utility transfer schemes. Riverside does not suffer from a shortage of taxpayer money. Riverside suffers from a shortage of disciplined leadership, long-term planning, operational oversight, and fiduciary responsibility.

For years, Riverside leadership has prioritized vanity projects, branding exercises, consultant culture, public relations campaigns, and political image management over core city services and sustainable economic development. The public has watched elected officials spend more time building social media personas, campaigning for their next office, and consolidating political influence than solving the structural issues facing the city.

At the same time, taxpayers are expected to believe there is “no choice” but another regressive tax increase.

That argument falls apart under scrutiny.

If public safety is truly the priority, then why has the city continued spending millions on non-essential projects while basic infrastructure deteriorates? Why are taxpayers funding expensive lobby remodels, branding initiatives, consultant contracts, studies, outreach campaigns, and administrative expansion while roads, response times, and maintenance lag behind? Why does the city continue to grow bureaucracy faster than service efficiency?

The public also deserves to question the ethics of the current campaign itself.

Residents are watching city resources, staff time, and taxpayer-funded infrastructure being leveraged to support what appears to be a highly coordinated political messaging campaign. Employees are pulled away from their actual responsibilities to present one-sided narratives to the public. Signs are plastered throughout the community in ways many residents view as disrespectful and excessive. Meanwhile morale inside City Hall continues deteriorating amid the ongoing instability and embarrassment surrounding the City Manager’s office — a situation created internally through poor leadership decisions and political dysfunction.

This is entirely self-inflicted.

The answer cannot always be “raise taxes again.”

A healthy city does not continuously return to taxpayers demanding more revenue while refusing to address spending discipline, accountability, transparency, ethics, and operational reform. Riverside should be aggressively pursuing productive economic development that expands the tax base through quality business growth, industry recruitment, logistics modernization, technology investment, and streamlined permitting — not relying on perpetual regressive taxation that disproportionately hurts working families, seniors, and small businesses.

The city should be focused on:
• Cutting wasteful spending
• Conducting real performance audits
• Demanding measurable accountability from charter officers
• Ending insider political culture and patronage hiring
• Improving transparency and ethics oversight
• Supporting business growth instead of bureaucratic expansion
• Prioritizing infrastructure and core public safety before vanity spending
• Negotiating responsibly with labor and vendors
• Building long-term financial sustainability instead of dependency on temporary tax measures

The public safety concerns raised are real. No reasonable person disputes the importance of fire protection and emergency response. But using emergencies and tragedy to emotionally pressure taxpayers into approving permanent spending expansions without demanding structural reform is irresponsible governance.

Citizens should ask difficult but fair questions:
Where did previous revenues go?
What measurable efficiencies were implemented?
What non-essential spending was cut first?
What operational reforms were attempted?
What accountability exists for failed leadership decisions?
Why are taxpayers always expected to pay more before government is expected to perform better?

Government exists to serve the public — not to perpetually grow itself.

Riverside does not need more fear-based campaigning. It needs mature leadership, fiscal discipline, ethical governance, economic competence, and elected officials willing to put taxpayers ahead of politics, insider influence, and self-promotion.