Growth should work
for the people already here.
Beaumont is one of the fastest-growing cities in California. The question isn't whether we grow, it's whether growth makes life better for the families who already call this city home.
Beaumont is going to more than double.
The decisions made right now will shape it for the next 30 years.
Beaumont is projected to grow from roughly 17,900 households today to over 40,000 at full buildout. That's rapid growth. New subdivisions, new warehouses, new infrastructure demands, new families arriving with expectations about what they're moving into.
The decisions the city council makes in the next few years will determine what kind of city those households actually live in: what gets approved, what conditions get attached, how developers are held accountable. Those decisions don't get made twice.
The window to change how Beaumont grows is right now, before the next 20,000 households get built. Once subdivisions are approved, bonds are issued, and families move in, the pattern locks in for another generation. That's why this council, at this moment, matters so much.
Beaumont can see what happened to the western Inland Empire.
There is still time to make different decisions.
The I-10 that runs through Beaumont is the same freeway that runs through Fontana, Rialto, Ontario, and San Bernardino. In those cities, the warehouse boom brought thousands of jobs and millions of square feet of logistics development. It also brought thousands of diesel trucks per day and a serious air quality crisis. The American Lung Association consistently ranks the Inland Empire among the most polluted regions in the nation.
Beaumont sits at the eastern end of that same corridor. The question isn't whether warehouses will want to come here — they already are. The question is whether the council will evaluate them seriously, require them to pay their fair share, and ask what they give back to the families already here, before saying yes.
Jim isn't opposed to industrial development or employment. He is opposed to approving whatever comes along without asking hard questions first: what is the air quality impact? How many truck trips per day? How close are homes, schools, parks? What does this give back to the community? Those questions need to be answered in public before the council votes yes.
Nearly $4 million from the General Fund.
No local hiring. No wage floor. Nothing for parks.
In June 2025, the Beaumont City Council approved a Development Agreement with Beaumont Regency AVG LLC, the company behind the new Target and Sprouts shopping center at Oak Valley Parkway and the I-10. It is a nearly 280,000 square-foot project on 28.95 acres, which the city's own staff report estimates will generate about 550 jobs across Phase 1 and Phase 2.
To make the project economically feasible for the developer, the city committed to a maximum reimbursement of up to $6 million toward road improvements: widening Oak Valley Parkway, new traffic signals, and related infrastructure work. Of that amount, $2.1 million comes from the Streets & Bridges impact fee account. The other $3.9 million comes out of the General Fund — the same fund that pays for police, fire, and parks.
Nearly $4 million in taxpayer money is a significant commitment. So what did the developer agree to give back to Beaumont residents in return?
The city will receive road improvements it will own, and over time it will collect sales and property tax revenue. Staff projects roughly $1.1 million a year in net new revenue and General Fund payback by FY 2031. Those are real benefits. But they are projections, not commitments. The staff report itself acknowledges that the agreement carries no minimum revenue guarantee and does not obligate the major retailer to open a store. And nothing in the agreement asks the developer what it will do for the people who already live here.
Before the council commits nearly $4 million from the General Fund, it should require concrete written community benefit commitments: local hiring preference, a wage floor for store jobs, a contribution to parks or community facilities, or some combination of all three. These are the fair price of entry when public money is on the table.
Read the staff report and the development agreement. Every figure in this section comes from those documents.
Paying impact fees is not giving something back.
It is paying your own way.
When an agreement like Regency's is questioned, the first answer is usually that the developer already pays millions in impact fees. That's true. Phase 1 is expected to pay between $3.6 million and $5.0 million in impact fees to the city. It is worth understanding exactly what that money buys.
Beaumont levies eleven distinct capital facility impact fees. By the city's own description, they exist to offset the costs growth imposes on municipal infrastructure and to burden each development with its fair share of those costs. State law requires a nexus study showing that each fee is proportional to the burden that particular project creates.
That is the whole distinction. Impact fees cover the damage a project causes. They leave the city roughly where it started. They do not add anything. A community benefit is what a city negotiates on top of that: local hiring preference, a wage floor, a contribution to a park. Fees are a legal obligation every development has to meet. Benefits are what you ask for when public money joins the deal.
The agreement was structured so prevailing wage
would not reach the private construction.
Building trades unions in the Inland Empire have fought for generations for wages and benefits that let working families own a home, raise a family, and retire with dignity. That is exactly what Beaumont should want for its residents.
On the Regency project, prevailing wage does apply to the public improvements — the road widening and traffic signals the city reimburses. That requirement is written into the Reimbursement Agreement. What deserves attention is how the rest of the deal was assembled.
Among the negotiation goals city staff listed for this agreement was to “limit the Applicant's obligation to pay prevailing wages to the public improvements.” The report explains that the deal was structured to minimize the risk that the obligation would reach construction of the private improvements. That means the workers who build the shopping center itself are not covered. This was not an oversight. It was a stated goal, deliberately negotiated and written down.
Jim supports prevailing wage requirements on city construction contracts. When public funds are on the table in a development agreement, he will push for clear labor protections to be part of the deal — and for the city to stop structuring agreements with the express purpose of avoiding them.
How big decisions get made in Beaumont right now.
In March 2026, the council finalized three new Mello-Roos taxes on the consent calendar and approved a 49-home subdivision at a public hearing that lasted under two minutes with no public comment — all at a single meeting, with no prior community sessions.
March 3, 2026 · Single Council Meeting- 49-home subdivision approved on Norman Road via a public hearing that lasted under two minutes — no public comment
- Infrastructure agreement approved for Oak Valley Village near Interstate 10 and Oak Valley Parkway
- CFD No. 2025-1 finalized for Fairway Canyon 4C, creating decades-long special tax obligations for future homeowners
- CFD No. 2025-M finalized for maintenance services
- CFD No. 2025-S finalized for public services
The families who will buy homes in Fairway Canyon 4C weren't in that room. Most residents who will be affected likely had no idea these items were being approved that night. The meeting ran through its agenda and adjourned. This is the normal pace of development decisions in Beaumont: fast, routine, and largely invisible to the people most affected by them.
Jim doesn't think that's because anyone has bad intentions. He thinks it's because the system has come to treat major development decisions as administrative tasks rather than community choices. He would like to change that. Read about Jim's commitment to community engagement.
Why the council keeps saying yes.
The city's own budget document describes CFD revenue as funds “expected to grow as more residential communities are developed.” That is not a neutral observation. It is a dependency built into the city's financial foundation: 10.7% of General Fund revenue comes from CFD transfers, money the city depends on to keep the lights on. Read the full story on Mello-Roos and CFDs.
That means the city has a structural reason to keep approving new developments. Not because each project is evaluated on its merits, but because the budget depends on the pattern continuing. A city in that position cannot say no to a developer objectively, even when saying no would be the right answer for the community. Smart Growth breaks that cycle, and a functioning downtown is part of how it gets broken: sales tax from local restaurants and shops generates revenue every month, without needing to approve a new subdivision.
“Every major development decision should start with one question: does this actually make life better for the people already living here?”
Smart Growth that earns its place.
Jim isn't running on a platform of stopping Beaumont from growing. He knows the city will grow, and he thinks thoughtful growth, done well, is genuinely good for the community. New families bring energy, new businesses bring opportunity, and a growing tax base can fund the parks, libraries, and infrastructure everyone shares.
What he is running on is the idea that growth should have to earn its place. Each major project should be able to answer the question: what does this give back to the people who already live here?
-
1
Every major development gets a real public conversation, not a consent calendar vote Subdivisions, warehouses, big-box stores, and infrastructure agreements that will shape the city for decades should be discussed in public, with time for community input, before a vote is taken.
-
2
Require every major project to say what it gives back. Put it in writing. Development agreements for major projects should include specific community benefit commitments: local hiring preference, wage standards, contributions to parks or community infrastructure. Not projections. Commitments.
-
3
Prevailing wage and fair labor standards on publicly funded projects When public money funds construction — whether infrastructure, community facilities, or subsidized development — the workers building those projects deserve industry-standard wages and benefits. Jim will support prevailing wage requirements on city contracts and push for development agreements on major projects to include clear labor standards. Working families build this city; they deserve to be paid fairly for doing it.
-
4
Actively pursue healthcare and education partners Warehouses and big-box stores are easy. Good jobs take a different kind of decision. Beaumont's growth trajectory makes it attractive for healthcare providers, workforce training centers, and community college satellites. Jobs that create careers and build community.