A recent letter from one of my opponents utilized altered and/or incorrect per-capita data that was misleading to the pubic. While that issue has been put to rest, there was some interesting data that was left off my opponent's letter: Walnut Creek spends almost 60% more per-capita than any other city referenced in her letter:
| City | Population | FY 10-11 Budget | Per-capita |
| Concord | 125,864 | $70,896.586 | $563.28 |
| Pleasant Hill | 33,547 | $17,716,326 | $528.10 |
| Martinez | 36,348 | $19,049,139 | $524.08 |
| Antioch | 101,182 | $35,092,455 | $346.83 |
| Pittsburg | 65,129 | $30,991.250 | $475.84 |
| Walnut Creek | 66,584 | $60,590,144 | $947.17 |
Over the last decade Walnut Creek's population has remained almost flat:
Over the same time-frame, our general fund spending has skyrocketed:
Due to this fact our per-capita spending has also skyrocketed. From 2001 to 2008 our per-capita spending increased almost 65%:
Walnut Creek deserves new leadership that will bring financial common sense back to City Hall. For new leadership that rebuilds the city's long-term financial health make an investment in me:
Sources:
Walnut Creek 2010-2012 Budget - Supplementary Section
CPI Data
United States Census Data
Demographic data provided by Walnut Creek and available via the City Clerk
