Last August, we warned Berkeley residents about Councilmember Terry Taplin’s proposed Bonds Forever policy. Tomorrow at 5:00 PM, City Council will vote on whether to make this policy a top staff priority (Item #4). Bonds Forever would institutionalize a cycle of issuing $250–$300 million in general obligation bonds every six years—locking Berkeley into permanent, rolling debt.
For a typical 30-year municipal bond, taxpayers pay $1.60–$2.00 for every $1.00 borrowed once interest is included. At that rate, Taplin’s proposal could obligate Berkeley taxpayers up to $1.2 billion in total repayment within just six years—a figure strikingly similar to the spending proposed in the failed Measure L, 2022.
Call to Action: Contact Your Councilmember Today
council@berkeleyca.gov
Subject: Reject Item #4 – Taplin’s “Bonds Forever” Policy
Dear Councilmember,
I urge you to reject Item #4 (DMND0004232), Taplin’s “Bonds Forever” policy, from the list of prioritized staff referrals.
Institutionalizing massive, recurring debt is not a solution to Berkeley’s structural budget deficit. The City should first bring ongoing expenditures in line with recurring revenues before taking on new long-term obligations.
Normalizing deficit financing through permanent bond issuance is fiscally irresponsible and putting middle class housing further out of reach. Please vote no on referring this policy to staff.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
5:00 PM
Action Calendar – New Business
1.-2026 City Council Referral Prioritization Results Using Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV)
Financial Implications: None
Here is WOM Berkeley Comment Provided at Today's Hearing:
ReplyDeleteAfter asking residents to absorb a 10–25% increase in property taxes—through measures you championed and parcel-tax inflators you approved on consent—you have made no meaningful structural changes to reduce the City’s $30 million deficit.
Your response has not been strategic reform. It has been the blunt instrument of more taxes and more borrowing.
Endorsing a Theater Tax that selectively picks winners and losers—taking money from one business to subsidize another.
Raising the sales tax.
And now you are seeking permanent borrowing authority, to put deficit financing on autopilot.
This is not fiscal stewardship. It is death by a thousand cuts, and it is crushing middle and fixed income residents and small businesses that can’t absorb endless new assessments to subsidize special interests.
So the next time you speak about the “missing middle” or “affordability,” I urge you to look in the mirror. Policies like Item 4 are not the solution—they are the problem.