By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. September 7, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 9/7/25.]
Each year my wife and I pay thousands of dollars in property taxes that support Benicia schools, even though we’ve never had kids or grandkids attend them. People pay such taxes without reaping direct benefits partly because it’s required, but also because it’s part of being a good citizen: It’s what people do in and for a community.
But hey, I’m by no means presenting myself as a paragon of virtue here. Paying such taxes is very much in my self-interest.
How’s that? Great schools are part of what keeps Benicia such a great place to live, which in turn fuels our property values that rise over time.
Similarly, I don’t drive around town much – maybe a few times per week – but good roads benefit my investment in my home. So yeah, it’s in my self-interest to pay for schools and roads even as I, like many of you, don’t directly benefit much or at all from them. We willingly (though perhaps not gladly) pay such levies because we each benefit.
The same goes for parks. And for the proposed Citywide Parks, Landscape, and Lighting Assessment District (PLLAD). Property owners can vote for or against the measure by October 14 via mail-in ballot (which must be received by the City, and not simply postmarked, by that date), by submitting it at the City Council meeting that day or by returning it to the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall by then.
(FYI: The City is convening a community meeting this Tuesday, September 9, from 6 to 8 pm, at the Fitzgerald Field Grandstand, 249 East H Street, at which City staff will share information, welcome feedback and answer questions about the PLLAD. You can also find additional details at a City site: BelieveInBenicia.org.)
I hardly use Benicia’s parks. But I do recall that years ago when my wife and I were checking Benicia out as a place to move to, we visited the Community Park, passed by several other parks and were impressed by now nice they all were.
Now, what if the Community Park’s ballfields were completely run-down? What if the others were weed-filled lots? What if broken lighting makes the facilities less usable or safe for early evening use? What if our trails are heavily littered or less accessible? I don’t know if we would have made this wonderful town our own or if future prospective residents would do the same. Maybe some young families who are potential Benicians would move elsewhere after seeing a disrepaired state of affairs here.
I do know that other attractive Bay Area cities – our neighbors in some respects, competitors for residents and businesses in others – appreciate and invest in the appeal of pleasant parks, trails, lighting and the like.
Parks are similarly part of what makes Benicia such a pleasant locale in which to live and a home here such a sound investment – even for those of us who don’t live near a park or use them much. They’re a face of this fantastic place. Together with our waterfront setting and First Street, they’re the first things many visitors see as they stroll or drive through town.
I realize and respect that some Benicians have trouble with specific aspects of the PLLAD. I might even agree with one or two such criticisms.
But let’s not lose the forest for the trees in deciding whether we’re going to maintain and improve our parks and related facilities, including gradually dealing with $55 million of deferred maintenance and repairing our 19 (out of 21) playgrounds that are over 20 years old. The value of private property flows partly from the appeal of an area’s public places.
The benefits are not just financial. Good parks are good for public health in all sorts of ways. In line with “broken windows” data on crime (which indicates that crime can rise in communities that appear broken-down) and research indicating that well-maintained parks and lighting deter unsavory conduct, they contribute to public safety.
And of course, while public health and public safety are highly desirable in and of themselves, they in turn contribute to property values.
Furthermore, while some out-of-towners may simply come and go in using these facilities – a benefit we shouldn’t begrudge them – others aid Benicia businesses and employment by coupling park and beach use here with visits to our supermarkets, restaurants, shops or galleries.
I’d add that we’ve recently been down a similar road and unfortunately decided to forego financial benefits. Last year, before Valero announced its plans to shutter the refinery, Benicians voted to reject a property transfer tax. If that measure had passed, the eventual sale of the refinery could have netted Benicia $10 million or more. Now we’ll net nada.
Some may say that the parks will be fine even without the proposed PLLAD. But the closure of the Valero refinery sooner or later will put a big burden on the City budget. Cuts will have to come somewhere. Without the PLLAD, parks will seriously suffer if we want to try to maintain police and fire protection – or do folks wish to cut those services instead?
Even if the refinery closes later rather than sooner, Benicia’s still dealing with resource challenges that undercut our capacity to maintain the parks, trails and related facilities.
Some understandably object to yet another fee for city services. I know that the maximum assessment of $208 per parcel is nothing to sneeze at. But that 57 cents per day (and far less for many property owners) is still a small price to pay for many thousands of dollars in annually increasing property value. It’s an investment in our own homes and businesses.
If you could spend a relatively tiny bit more to ensure that your home’s worth rises rather than falls, that you profit by thousands or tens of thousands of dollars more when you eventually sell it, that your kids inherit a better property down the line or that you can rent it out for more, you might decide it makes sense to shell out those 10 or 25 or 57 cents per day for your home.
Well, Benicia is our home. The parks are our living room and front yard.
Finally, let’s face it: We know of other Bay Area communities where public service breakdowns have damaged property values, as well as public safety and health. It can happen all too easily if things start to slip. We can’t let the same fate befall Benicia.
So let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Please vote for the PLLAD not just because it benefits this lovely community we call home, but because – even if we don’t use the parks or we dislike elements of the proposal – it’s good for each of us and our pocketbooks.
CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND
You must be logged in to post a comment.