> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Berkeley had a focused bond strategy, until Measure U: Op-ed - URL: https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2026/10/14/community/berkeley-had-a-focused-bond-strategy-until-measure-u-op-ed/ - Published: 2026-10-14T23:25:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-15T00:41:33.000Z - Description: Measure U lacks clear project commitments, write Geoffrey Lomax and Isabelle Gaston, who favor a more focused infrastructure bond. - Author: Guest Essay - Tags: Community, Guest Essays, #articles, Elections *Editor's Note: TBS publishes guest essays from community members on issues of concern. Today's piece was written by Geoffrey Lomax and Isabelle Gaston of* [*Affordable Berkeley*](https://www.affordableberkeley.org/?ref=berkeleyscanner.com)*, a volunteer-led organization united by the belief that a financially sustainable, affordable, and equitable future is essential to the quality of life Berkeley residents deserve.* --- Berkeley needs to invest in its aging infrastructure. The question before voters is not whether we should make those investments. It is whether borrowing $300 million should begin with a clear set of priorities based on sound financial principles with a plan for what residents will receive in return. A year ago, Berkeley was considering exactly that kind of approach. ## A focused strategy In June 2025, the [City Council considered](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fHf7Z9nqccFg6Y-rygBuVnjCWL8wFQ%5FJ/view?ref=berkeleyscanner.com) a potential 2026 bond centered on implementing the [Berkeley Fire Department Facilities Master Plan](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tMT%5FCL-e-msXyhD2Pf8tpp6BrylU8GWd/view?usp=drive%5Flink&ref=berkeleyscanner.com). The concept was straightforward and consistent with established [principles of municipal debt financing](https://debtguide-api.treasurer.ca.gov/guide-pages/introduction/i-2-decide-whether-debt-financings-is-appropriate-for-your-agency/i-2-2-decision-2-what-is-the-right-source-of-financing/i-2-2-2-when-should-a-public-agency-consider-debt?ref=berkeleyscanner.com) by: - Investing in essential assets that serve a **vital public need**. - Addressing infrastructure that is a **core responsibility** of city government. - Financing projects with **substantial** **capital costs** that produce **durable infrastructure** with useful lives expected to equal or exceed the debt-repayment period. These principles matter because debt is expensive, especially for newer residents, and long-lasting. When residents are being asked to pay back borrowing for decades, the assets should last long enough to justify passing those costs to future generations. The state's [financing guide](https://debtguide-api.treasurer.ca.gov/guide-pages/introduction/i-2-decide-whether-debt-financings-is-appropriate-for-your-agency/i-2-2-decision-2-what-is-the-right-source-of-financing?ref=berkeleyscanner.com) explicitly describes this as an issue of "intergenerational equity" — aligning the project's useful life with the period over which people pay for it. Few municipal investments make that case more clearly than fire and emergency-response facilities. Replacing and modernizing aging facilities involves substantial upfront costs but produces assets that will serve generations of residents. A general obligation bond with a binding commitment to fire facilities would give voters and city staff implementing the program something equally important: **a clear roadmap and timeline for what the borrowing authorization is intended to accomplish.** This concept is not novel; general obligation bonds are typically tied to a defined purpose and project scope, giving voters a clear understanding of what their long-term borrowing commitment is intended to finance.Berkeley is already using this model successfully. Measure O (2018), a general obligation bond, authorized $135 million for a specific purpose: affordable housing. Voters knew what they were being asked to finance and could subsequently evaluate the program based on its actual results. Berkeley is [on track](https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/measure-o?ref=berkeleyscanner.com) to add 541 new affordable housing units (327 completed and 214 in the pipeline). ## Measure U's approach is far too broad How do the 2025 fire facilities proposal and Measure O compare with November's Measure U? [Measure U](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aRE6%5F8n2IA9-FuDi4k%5FhziA9Kcwb7B8A/view?usp=drive%5Flink&ref=berkeleyscanner.com) would authorize $300 million in borrowing across broad categories of projects with no specific commitments. The city has identified [33 potential projects](https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/Potential%20Bond%20Measure%20Projects.pdf?ref=berkeleyscanner.com), totaling $313 million. Past experience shows capital costs quickly outrun estimates: T1 Phase 1 costs rose about 12%, and the city [later found](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LOQbfhNVFxXOljP96UEosYD1CizH-OVN/view?usp=share%5Flink&ref=berkeleyscanner.com) that a group of Phase 2 projects needed roughly 15% more funding simply to deliver their baseline scope. Also, some of the projects are not well suited for debt financing, as they fail to meet the financing principles described above and may actually violate [state constitutional requirements](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tMT%5FCL-e-msXyhD2Pf8tpp6BrylU8GWd/view?usp=drive%5Flink&ref=berkeleyscanner.com) (see page 135). At the end of the day, staff and City Council would be left with diminished buying power and no roadmap while navigating a range of stakeholders with competing priorities that will evolve over time. ## Berkeley needs a focused infrastructure bond The coalition opposing Measure U includes Berkeley residents who have advocated for infrastructure investment for years. When the city considered financing implementation of the Fire Facilities Master Plan in 2025, we [supported that approach](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NjkmhQXaD5pAX81ecla%5F9pVyYqbWTGUr/view?usp=drive%5Flink&ref=berkeleyscanner.com). Our position, therefore, is not that Berkeley should avoid infrastructure borrowing. We are urging voters to reject Measure U and asking the City Council to return with a more focused infrastructure measure, consistent with the 2025 fire facilities proposal and the [Berkeley Vision 2050 Framework](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s3OwhjXzvVuDwntNitf6suKT5MdEUhyD/view?ref=berkeleyscanner.com). The fundamental choice, therefore, is not between infrastructure investment and no infrastructure investment. It is about how Berkeley structures long-term borrowing: how clearly projects are defined before voters approve the debt. The City Council gave us the ideal model in 2025; let's return in 2028 with a similar approach. ## Related resources Learn more about [all the Berkeley ballot measures](https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/elections/ballot-measures?ref=berkeleyscanner.com) for November 2026 on the city website. - [Measure U](https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/Berkeley%5FBond%20Measure%20-%20Full%20Text.pdf?ref=berkeleyscanner.com): General obligation bond measure for public infrastructure and facilities (two-thirds vote) - [Measure V](https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/Berkeley%5FSales%20Tax%20-%20Full%20Text.pdf?ref=berkeleyscanner.com): Transactions and use (sales) general tax measure (majority) - The city attorney's [impartial analysis](https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/Nov%202026%20Impartial%20Analyses.pdf?ref=berkeleyscanner.com) of each ballot measure --- **The Scanner will periodically publish** [**guest essays**](https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/author/guest-essays/) **from community members on issues of interest or concern. Submit** [**your ideas**](https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/tips/) **to TBS.** ## Sign up for The Berkeley Scanner Authoritative crime + safety news Subscribe Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.