Late last week, the latest Pasadena In Focus newsletter (June–August 2026) landed in mailboxes and inboxes across the city. Presented as a friendly “Community Conversation” survey, it asks residents how we feel about fire protection and our aging streets. The materials paint a compelling picture of urgent needs driven by growth, aging infrastructure, and rising costs.
What the mailing carefully omits is the city’s parallel effort to place a new parcel tax on the November 2026 ballot.
At the May 12, 2026 Municipal Services Committee meeting, Public Works Director Greg de Vinck disclosed that his department is working with a consultant on a parcel tax targeting well over $100–125 million for unfunded street and sidewalk repairs, plus more than $200 million in fire department infrastructure and service needs. An initial private poll has been conducted. An “educational” campaign is in preparation. Yet this critical context is absent from the survey and newsletter.
This sequence closely follows the “engineering of consent” techniques pioneered by Edward Bernays — the father of modern public relations and propaganda. In his writings, Bernays described how an informed elite could shape public opinion by first identifying emotional triggers through private polling, then using repeated one-sided messaging via trusted channels (like city newsletters) to build urgency, while strategically withholding key information such as costs or alternatives. The goal: make a predetermined solution appear as the natural, community-supported outcome.
Pasadena voters have approved tax measures before — when the full picture was presented upfront:
- Measure L (2022): A straightforward renewal of a library parcel tax with clear cost and service details.
- Measure I (2018): A sales tax increase debated openly from the beginning.
- PUSD Measure EE (2024): Explicitly tied its $90-per-parcel ask to specific programs.
By contrast, the current process relies on private polling, selective messaging that highlights problems but hides the funding mechanism, and timed outreach.
All of this is happening even as the city has adopted a massive $3.28 billion Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan that already addresses hundreds of infrastructure projects through existing budgets, grants, and potential efficiencies.
Councilmember Rick Cole properly pressed staff on transparency. My Public Records Act request for consultant documents and poll results was delayed until early June — precisely as this latest survey wave reaches every household.
Pasadena residents are intelligent and civic-minded. We can support real solutions for our streets and fire protection — but only if given complete information: the poll results, consultant strategy, full budget context, and honest discussion of all funding alternatives before being asked to prioritize needs with a hidden price tag.
The survey is still open. Participate — but add a clear comment: “Release the parcel tax plans, poll results, and all alternatives first. We need full transparency, not engineered consent.”
Demand the immediate release of all documents. Insist on genuine openness rather than managed perception.
This is our city. Our money. Our right to honest, informed self-government.
William Paparian is a former Mayor of Pasadena (1995–1997) and City Councilmember for East Pasadena (1987–1999).
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
