Arguments In Opposition to Ballot Measures

The  WOM Berkeley Team worked in collaboration with various Berkeley watchdog groups and civic-minded residents to submit arguments in opposition to the (1) Sales Tax Increase, (2) the Bank-Tax and (3) the Infrastructure Bond. We thank all who provided cogent comments and recommendations.

Argument Against the Sales Tax Measure (Berkeley Measure V)

A NO vote is not a vote against police, firefighters, parks, libraries, or other essential city services. It is a vote for accountability.

Berkeley residents have repeatedly supported taxes to fund important public services,  including significant increases in 2024. Before asking taxpayers to pay even more, City Council should demonstrate that it is managing existing revenues responsibly and prioritizing basic city services.

Regressive Taxation

This measure would permanently increase Berkeley's sales tax from 10.25% to 10.75%, regressive taxation that falls hardest on students, low-income households, seniors, and working families. The regional transportation sales tax would further hike this rate to 11.25%, one of the country’s highest, imitating Alabama and Louisiana. During an affordability crisis, Berkeley should not target the most economically vulnerable. And higher local sales taxes would further depress Berkeley's neighborhood businesses.

Consumer Hardship Without Spending Reform

Supporters say this tax will help fund police, fire, and other essential services. However, the ordinance deposits the revenue into the City's General Fund, where it is available for any purpose rather than being legally dedicated to those specific services. Berkeley projects a $29.5 million structural deficit by Fiscal Year 2028, underscoring the need for long-term fiscal reform and responsible budgeting.

The proposed sales tax would generate approximately $10 million per year, but Berkeley's expenditures are projected to continue growing faster than that new revenue. Unless the City addresses the underlying drivers of its structural deficit, today's regressive tax increase will not solve tomorrow's budget problem.

Berkeley deserves excellent public services and responsible financial management. Before asking taxpayers to approve another regressive tax that remains in effect unless repealed or amended by the voters, City Council should demonstrate disciplined budgeting, prudent spending, and accountability for the dollars it already receives.

Vote NO.

Argument Against the Public Bank Parcel Tax (Berkeley Measure Z)

For nearly a decade, proponents sought to capitalize a regional bank through shared contributions from Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, and Alameda County. The proposed cost was approximately $40 million, with Berkeley contributing about $2.5 million. That shared financing model never materialized. Now Berkeley homes and businesses are being asked to cover 100%+ of the costs, $58.3 million for an experimental bank that may never receive regulatory authorization to operate.

Berkeley Pays, Everyone Benefits

Yet, proponents still promise to finance projects throughout the East Bay, including Oakland and Richmond, with no guarantee that Berkeley will receive benefits proportional to its financial contribution, nor does it require other jurisdictions to contribute before Berkeley taxpayers do. This measure requires Berkeley property taxpayers to subsidize other jurisdictions. 

Berkeley already faces a $30 million structural deficit. Before imposing another parcel tax, voters should ask whether Berkeley should finance projects in cities that are not contributing, or whether new tax revenues should address Berkeley's fiscal crisis.

No Taxpayer Protection

The measure creates unique taxpayer risks not present in traditional parcel taxes. It mandates automatic annual tax increases based on the greater of inflation or California personal income growth. Every other city parcel tax authorizes City Council to suspend, reduce, or modify these increases if they become unnecessary or financially burdensome. Nor does the measure provide a mechanism to reduce the tax if capitalization is achieved. Tax increases are automatic; benefits are not.

Berkeley deserves policies that provide clear local benefits, equitable regional cost sharing, meaningful oversight, and strong taxpayer protections.

Protect Berkeley residents and businesses. Local taxes should deliver local benefits, and have City Council controls.

Vote NO.

Argument Against Infrastructure Bond (Berkeley Measure U)

Measure 1 borrows $300 million with no comprehensive capital plan, no binding commitment to specific projects, and no budget for maintaining new facilities. Higher interest rates make the total costs $550-600 million. High inflation and competing spending priorities, with no blueprint for success, risks taking on enormous debt without addressing Berkeley’s most pressing infrastructure needs.

Borrowing makes sense when it finances high-priority capital projects that serve residents for decades. Council identified 35 potential projects to fund with bond revenues, but did not prioritize or legally commit to any of them. 

This list could change any time and all 35 projects are unlikely to be funded – it’s a $300 million blank check. Berkeley's procurement guidelines have allowed projects to double in cost. Bond Measure T1 (2016) projects cost about 15% more than originally budgeted.

Bonds should finance long-lived capital assets. This measure mixes in operating costs and routine maintenance that should be funded through special or General Fund recurring revenue. Examples include:

• $14 million for sidewalk repairs, even though voters approved Measure FF in 2024 to fix Berkeley's sidewalk and pathway backlog. 

• $6.7 million for seismic improvements to the Old City Hall, despite needing more than $100 million in repairs.

• $25 million for King Pool, despite longstanding concerns about the unequal distribution of recreational facilities between North and South Berkeley.

Berkeley residents devoted countless volunteer hours through 2025 to develop Vision 2050, a thoughtful comprehensive long-term strategy for the City's capital needs. Yet its recommendations have not been implemented or meaningfully incorporated into Measure 1.

Before asking taxpayers to commit up to $550-600 million, the City should establish clear priorities, make binding commitments to bonafide capital projects, and present a credible plan for maintaining new facilities.

Berkeley can do better. Vote NO.