Vote NO on Measure GG
Piedmont has always been defined by its strong sense of community, its excellent public services, and the unique stewardship of its residents.
However, as we approach the November 3, 2026 election, we face a ballot measure that threatens to fundamentally alter our town’s affordability and fiscal transparency.
Piedmont’s Measure GG asks voters to approve a real estate transfer tax increase from 1.3% to 1.75%. While proponents argue this is a harmless update to keep up with neighboring cities, a closer look reveals that Measure GG is a flawed policy that places a steep burden on home buyers and residents without providing sufficient accountability.
Here is why I am voting “NO”:
A Regressive Burden on Homeowners and Buyers
An increase might sound marginal on paper, but in a real estate market like Piedmont’s, it translates to thousands of dollars in added friction. Opponents with Affordable Piedmont point out that this increase would add significantly to the transaction costs of buying or selling a home. For young families looking to buy their first home in our community, this is a steep up-front barrier. For long-term residents and seniors looking to downsize, it is an unfair penalty on their hard-earned home equity.
A Tax Structure Requiring Voter Scrutiny
Proponents highlight that the estimated revenue will support critical services like police, fire, and the maintenance of our aging city buildings and roads. However, it functions essentially as a BLANK CHECK, leaving the door wide open for funds to be diverted to administrative overhead or other pet projects with zero recourse for the voters. A good example would be the Piedmont Pool — from a projected $19.5 million cost to a finished cost of $35 million.
Permanence and Duration Concerns
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Measure GG is its potential longevity. Without a built-in sunset clause, residents are being asked to approve a PERMANENT tax hike for temporary or shifting municipal projects. If the city truly needs funds for specific infrastructure overhauls, it should present a transparent, special tax with a clear expiration date and strict oversight—NOT an open-ended revenue stream.
Conclusion
We all want a safe, well-maintained Piedmont. But raising a flat transaction tax to punitive levels without giving taxpayers a legal guarantee of how that money will be spent is a misstep. We deserve fiscal measures that include accountability, clear sunset dates, and protections for housing accessibility.
For these reasons, I urge my neighbors to join me in voting NO on Measure GG this November. Let’s send the City Council back to the drawing board to design a fairer, more transparent solution for our infrastructure needs.