Time for a Change

EDITORIAL

By Betsy Bashor

Campaign signs on my fence

Ballots for the Nov. 3 election arrived in the mail this week.

I’m voting for Kimberly White and Wally Nowinski because they will try to open up city government and make it more responsive.

I’m voting for them because I want a new or renovated library – preferably with a senior center – that is not located in the Plaza BART transit-oriented development.

I’m voting for them because I want council members who will ask fundamental questions about how the city operates, consider multiple alternatives to solve problems, and place a high emphasis on finding out what residents think.

No pressure, Kimberly and Wally!

But seriously folks, I think White and Nowinski will give all of this a try.

Challenging the Status Quo

Heartened by the success of the campaign against the Measure C library tax initiative, they seem inspired by the opportunity to learn more about what residents want and try to deliver. White put a lot of miles on her walking shoes, and Nowinski led the social media campaign. Because they helped to oppose a tax to fund a library, they’ve been accused of being mean, negative people who want to sabotage our city’s progressive agenda.

To me, that seems unfair.

As I write this, I’m sitting in the shade of a tall tree in Huber Park. I love our city for the friendly people, the feeling of safety it gives me, and the parks and playing fields. Do we really want to attack people for expressing disagreement and criticizing the status quo?

I worry that our city government is stuck on a path that doesn’t allow for changing conditions, robust public debate, and trying to find compromises that allow most people to be somewhat happy. I want White and Nowinski to raise questions about what’s happening and help to bring earlier stages of decision-making into the public eye.

Council member William Ktsanes has also said the city needs more transparency and better public engagement. With White and Nowinski sharing that goal, I see potential for things to change.

What Would Wally Do?

Nowinski, who has helped grow a start-up business to a company with about 100 employees and a $55 million payroll, posed questions about the parking plan for neighborhoods that currently have a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program.

Recently a city consultant’s report said the city lost more than $400,000 operating its RPP in 2024-25. At an on-line meeting about proposals for parking around Plaza BART, a resident said the need for the permit program has changed since 2019. With the big drop in BART ridership, the demand for street parking by Plaza BART riders is down. After that meeting, Nowinski asked: “Do residents still want the program?” He asked why no one posed that question over the past several years.

What Would Kimberly Do?

White, who has served on the Financial Advisory Board (FAB) since 2022, previously worked at BART in finance and operations and has specific ideas about changes she’d like to see.

First, White says the budget should align with the services the city plans to deliver and include all known expenses. Not doing so means the city can reject funding appeals by saying it has no money for new spending. Then later in the year city leaders can add extra spending items saying there is more money than expected.

Second, White wants the city to release a “service delivery study” which should show how the city can reduce duplication or inefficiencies in its operations. She said the State Auditor recommended doing the study in 2021 and in 2025 the city hired a consultant for the job. A presentation on findings was initially expected before the holidays in 2025, White said, but has not been delivered. The scope of the study requested by the city was not discussed at FAB, she added.

Third, White would like to use performance measures to monitor city operations. This approach was used at BART, where White held positions in finance and operations. Using the concept in the city would require “a baseline of services we want and how we will measure,” she said. “That’s something we would have to establish as a community.”

What Are Some White-Nowinski Goals?

White and Nowinski are among the candidates who say the city should do a better job of polling residents about a full list of capital projects before going forward with any of them. At a Sept. 30 forum, Mayor Gabe Quinto said the city already polls residents every year.

White and Nowinski say surveys need to be better designed as part of a better public engagement plan. They need to ask residents to rank their choices, White said, and the city needs to find a way to include people who don’t take online surveys. Nowinski said the council should have input into any surveys before they go out, and detailed survey results would be made public.

The two want to work toward bringing back a dedicated senior center. They agree it would have to happen in stages due to limited funding.

The Flock Question

White and Nowinski agree with the recent decision not to renew the contract for 40 Flock license plate reading cameras around the city.

“Flock Surveillance is a toxic company,” Nowinski said. I don’t think we should work with them. I don’t think we can trust them.”

However, he and White both say they recently talked with officers in the police department about technologies used in policing.

White said, “I do think we’ll have an initiative come back for automated license plate readers. We do need to listen to the community to find out what’s best for the community.”

Nowinski agreed. “There will be something that will be proposed and we need to have a public discussion around this,” he said.

Not the Newcomers

While I have been able to hear a little bit from M.J. Jawili and Forrest Lanning, I can’t vote for them because I want White and Nowinski to win.

Not the Incumbents

I decided in July 2025 not to vote for council incumbents Carolyn Wysinger and Gabe Quinto because they showed reckless disregard for the concerns of Richmond Street residents.

The Richmond Street Experience

Richmond Street residents had complained about speeding and not being able to cross the street safely. After a public input process, the city came up with a plan to remove up to 50% of the street parking on eight blocks north of Moeser Lane and create a curving “chicane” bike lane to slow traffic. It was a far cry from the original grant proposal which called for keeping a shared bike lane on a road that complements the nearby Ohlone Greenway. Many residents were astounded when they saw detailed maps at a Dec. 7, 2024 meeting. (The consultant, CSW, did an outstanding job of making the plan clear.)

After many residents reacted with dismay, it was announced there would be no more public meetings and the city would proceed with the 35% design phase. Richmond Street residents presented a petition signed by 140 people who lived there asking the city to explore other possible alternatives. They got CHP data on bicycle and pedestrian crashes from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System and found that there were zero crashes involving bicyclists on Richmond Street from 2013 to 2024. There were four pedestrian crashes, three at the end of the street closest to Potrero Avenue.

At the time, a resident named Ben asked, “Is there another way to make the street bike-friendly?”

A resident named Kathy said, “It would be nice to have Plan A, B, or C.”

But the plan moved forward without exploring alternatives.

City Public Works Director Yvetteh Ortiz defended the plan, saying it was “proactive” instead of “reactive” to data, and would make the street safer for everyone.

A majority of council members said that city staff was following direction that had been set years earlier in documents like the active transportation plan. Council member Ktsanes dissented.

At the July 15, 2025, council meeting, then-mayor Wysinger delivered what she called “incendiary” remarks to “privileged” Richmond Street residents who wrote to her about how she ought to represent them. The project moved ahead.

Doubling Down

On Sept. 15 of this year, the council doubled down on this approach.

It passed a new road safety plan explicitly stating that staff could decide to remove parking to add bike lanes on a “backbone bikeway network” with no further approval from the City Council. It removed residents’ right to appeal.

This seems undemocratic to me. Why create more distance between council members and city decisions?

The Library

Finally, there is the library.

I like libraries and I use them often. But I voted against Measure C because I did not want to fund construction of a Plaza BART library at a transit hub in what’s approved to become the most congested area in town. Building a library at the BART site is still in the city’s strategic plan, and was endorsed by all council members except Ktsanes.

I was happy when Measure C lost, because I thought it would free our city from the years-long push for a Plaza BART library and allow us to explore other alternatives like the former Portola School playing fields and the current library site at 6510 Stockton Ave.

On Sept. 8, the night the new library task force met for the first time, I got a rude awakening.

No Evidence That Voters Disliked the Plaza BART Library Plan?

City Manager Karen Pinkos and her assistant, Will Provost, said that while some community members may think the 70% ‘no’ vote on Measure C was a rejection of the city’s Plaza BART library plan, there is no data to back that up. Provost suggested it might be possible for the task force to request a survey be done to pose that question.

Pinkos said that Measure C was a citizens’ initiative that was “completely separate” from the city. The measure did not specify that a library must be built at the Plaza. She said other reasons to vote ‘no’ might have been anti-tax sentiment or a senior citizen exemption that received a lot of criticism.

On Sept. 30 Mayor Gabe Quinto echoed her comments, saying “council and staff had nothing to do with” Measure C. He added that the vote showed, “You don’t want a new library.”

I don’t agree, and neither do Nowinski and White.

“The voters rejected the BART library plan in a landslide,” Nowinski said. “The fact that the city administration and establishment majority on city council refuses to acknowledge the message voters sent in the election is honestly concerning.”

I do want a new -- or renovated -- library. I also want two new City Council members.