Guest Opinion | William Paparian: City of Pasadena Launches “Community Conversation” — But Hides the Parcel Tax

Once again, Pasadena residents are being asked to participate in a “community conversation” about critical infrastructure needs — this time fire protection and our aging streets. The City’s May 14 announcement and online survey sound reasonable on the surface: identify priorities, gather feedback, plan for the future.

But there’s a glaring omission. Nowhere in the public materials does the City mention its active exploration of a new parcel tax to pay for these needs.

As Pasadena Now reported, just days before the launch, at the May 12th Municipal Services Committee meeting, Public Works Director Greg de Vinck disclosed that he is working with a consultant on a plan to place a parcel tax measure on the November 2026 ballot to fund street repairs and fire infrastructure. Councilmember Rick Cole pressed staff to bring the discussion into the open, warning that a November ballot measure cannot succeed if residents only learn about it weeks before the August filing deadline. Cole noted the public currently knows “this much” about the plan — gesturing to almost nothing.

The numbers are significant: roughly $125 million in unfunded street and sidewalk repairs, plus more than $200 million in fire department infrastructure and service needs. Yet the survey and announcement frame these solely as urgent “needs” caused by growth, aging infrastructure, and rising costs. No mention of current funding levels, past spending decisions, the $3.28 billion Capital Improvement Plan, or alternatives to a new tax.

This is not transparency. This is a classic prelude to a tax measure: run an internal poll, launch an “educational” survey that avoids any discussion of costs or revenue, document “community priorities,” then draft the ballot language. By the time the parcel tax appears, the City will claim residents demanded it.

I have filed a Public Records Act request (No. 0044232) with the Department of Public Works seeking all documents associated with Director de Vinck’s statement — including consultant contracts, cost models, funding analyses, meeting notes, and related materials. Residents deserve this information now, not after the campaign is in full swing.

This pattern is all too familiar. In February, I urged a No vote on the countywide sales tax measure, the Essential Services Restoration Act, citing affordability, fairness, and the need for accountability rather than more taxes on struggling families. In April, I wrote about the urgent need for transparency on housing projects in East Pasadena and demanded full disclosure on the Rosemead Family Apartments project. In January, I warned that proposed electric rate increases represented a perpetuation of a broken system.

Pasadena taxpayers have every right to support investments in safe streets and strong fire protection. What we should not accept is a process that presents spending needs in isolation while keeping the funding mechanism — and its impact on our property tax bills — hidden in committee meetings and consultant studies.

True transparency would mean telling residents upfront: “We are considering a new parcel tax. Here are the estimated costs to homeowners and businesses. Here are the current budgets and alternatives being reviewed.” Instead, we get a survey that asks what we value without ever asking what we are willing to pay — or whether we believe the City has first exhausted efficiencies, better procurement, prioritization of existing funds, or other revenue-neutral options.

As a former Mayor and Councilmember who has fought for fiscal accountability in Pasadena for decades, I urge residents to fill out the survey with pointed comments demanding full disclosure. Attend the upcoming meetings. Demand that the City release all documents related to the $125 million street needs assessment and fire planning immediately — starting with a prompt and complete response to PRA Request No. 0044232.

Most importantly, tell the City Council that any ballot measure must come with ironclad accountability: independent audits, clear spending restrictions, regular public reporting, and a realistic plan that does not simply assume taxpayers will keep writing bigger checks.

Pasadena deserves honest government that levels with its residents, not a carefully managed “conversation” designed to build support for another tax. Let’s insist on the full story before the campaign moves forward.

William Paparian is a former Mayor of Pasadena (1995–1997) and City Councilmember for East Pasadena (1987–1999).