As Riverside voters prepare to decide the future of Measure Z and evaluate candidates for City Council, one issue deserves far more scrutiny than campaign slogans, glossy mailers, or coordinated social media posts:
Who is funding these campaigns — and what do they expect in return?
Voters should exercise extreme caution when candidates campaigning for “Yes on Measure Z” are simultaneously being heavily backed by unions and special interests that directly benefit from increased city spending, expanded tax revenues, and future salary negotiations.
This is not about attacking public employees. Riverside depends on hardworking police officers, firefighters, utility workers, and city staff. The issue is whether elected officials are serving taxpayers first — or serving the political organizations financing their campaigns.
Measure Z Was Originally Sold Through Fear
The original 2016 Measure Z campaign relied heavily on fear-based messaging. Voters were warned that without a sales tax increase, Riverside would face devastating cuts to police, fire, emergency response, anti-gang programs, road repairs, and community services.
The measure was projected to generate approximately $48 million annually.
Following the passage of the original Measure Z, Riverside residents were promised that the new sales tax revenue would be used to stabilize and improve core city services, repair infrastructure, enhance public safety, address homelessness, and improve the quality of life throughout the community. Instead, shortly after Measure Z revenues began flowing into City Hall, the City approved substantial compensation increases through agreements with public employee associations and labor groups, creating what many residents now view as windfall salary and benefit packages that far exceeded what taxpayers were originally led to believe. Rather than seeing transformational improvements to roads, infrastructure, economic development, or long-term fiscal sustainability, taxpayers watched expanding revenues increasingly absorbed by rising personnel costs, pensions, and operational spending. This pattern raises serious concerns as the same political coalition and special interests now return to voters demanding even more permanent tax increases while using the same fear-based messaging that accompanied the original Measure Z campaign.
Today, the City acknowledges Measure Z is generating more than $80 million annually, with Fiscal Year 2024/25 revenues exceeding $83.6 million.
Yet despite this enormous increase in revenue, Riverside leaders are once again using the same fear tactics to demand even more taxpayer money through an expanded Measure Z proposal that would increase the sales tax to 1.25% and remove the sunset date entirely.
Even more concerning, a Superior Court judge ordered the City to revise parts of the ballot language after finding portions of the original wording misleading.
That alone should concern every voter.
Where Did the Money Actually Go?
The City’s own financial reports show that after Measure Z revenues began dramatically exceeding projections, the City implemented significant compensation increases tied to the Partnership Compensation Model (PCM). According to the FY 2018/19 Fourth Quarter Financial Report, the Balance Revenue Index produced a 7.68% growth rate, triggering salary increases far above original budget assumptions. The report specifically identified approximately $2.7 million in unbudgeted compensation impacts citywide, including increases affecting police, fire, SEIU, and unrepresented employee groups.
Rather than taxpayers seeing the transformational infrastructure improvements and long-term fiscal stabilization repeatedly promised during the original Measure Z campaign, a substantial portion of the rapidly growing Measure Z revenues became absorbed into expanding operational and compensation obligations. The City’s own Measure Z reports now show hundreds of millions spent, with public safety staffing and operational costs representing some of the largest categories of expenditures.
A portion of these expenditures went toward public safety staffing, compensation growth, vehicles, and operational expansion. However, the first allocations were for windfall salary increases bringing salaries about competitive cities and private enterprise employees.
Meanwhile, Riverside residents continue facing:
- deteriorating streets,
- rising homelessness,
- growing affordability problems,
- business flight from California,
- and increasing pressure from regressive taxation.
A sales tax increase disproportionately impacts working families, seniors, and lower-income residents because everyone pays the same rate regardless of income. It is one of the most regressive forms of taxation possible.
Follow the Endorsements — Follow the Money
Voters should carefully examine which candidates are being endorsed and funded by organizations that stand to financially benefit from increased tax revenues and future labor negotiations.
When candidates become dependent on special-interest funding, voters must ask:
- Will these elected officials negotiate independently on behalf of taxpayers?
- Or will they feel obligated to repay political debts after the election?
Campaign endorsements are not always signs of independence or leadership. In many cases, they reveal future obligations.
Riverside residents should review campaign finance disclosures, union endorsements, PAC funding, and coordinated campaign efforts carefully before voting.
Riverside Needs Financial Management — Not Political Theater
Riverside does not suffer from a lack of taxation.
Riverside suffers from:
- weak fiscal discipline,
- poor long-term planning,
- political pandering,
- vanity spending,
- and leadership focused more on social media branding than measurable economic performance.
Too many elected officials today appear focused on photo opportunities, influencer-style politics, and positioning themselves for higher office rather than solving Riverside’s structural problems.
The City needs leaders with:
- private-sector management experience,
- real business development backgrounds,
- operational budgeting skills,
- and an understanding of fiduciary responsibility.
Riverside should be aggressively pursuing real economic development that expands the tax base naturally through business growth, investment, jobs, and innovation — not repeatedly returning to taxpayers demanding more regressive taxation.
A Simple Voter Scorecard
Before supporting any candidate, Riverside voters should ask:
| Question | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Who are their top donors? | Reveals political obligations |
| Which unions or PACs endorse them? | Shows who expects influence |
| Do they support increasing Measure Z permanently? | Indicates tax philosophy |
| What private-sector experience do they have? | Demonstrates operational competency |
| Have they managed large budgets responsibly? | Shows fiscal discipline |
| Are they focused on policy or publicity? | Separates leadership from performance politics |
Riverside Deserves Independent Leadership
Good governance requires independent thinking, transparency, and fiscal accountability — not coalition politics built around campaign debts and special-interest endorsements.
Riverside voters deserve councilmembers who represent residents first, taxpayers first, and the long-term health of the City first.
The future of Riverside should not be sold to the highest political bidder.
