Page One

Berkeley progressives weren’t the only ones cheering on election night. 

While the far left celebrated gains on City Council, more conservative tax and spending opponents won an unprecedented victory with voters rejecting three of four proposed tax measures. 

Ballot initiatives calling for new taxes to pay for pedestrian safety, affordable housing and a retrofit of old City Hall were all soundly rejected. Only a property tax increase to pay for a new animal shelter met with voter approval. 

“The story of this election was a tax revolt,” said Bob Migdal, a former candidate for the 4th District City Council seat. He argued that mounting city budget deficits and middle class hardships had soured residents on supporting tax hikes for new spending. 

“Look at Proposition M,” Migdal said, referring to a call to increase the tax on home sales to pay for affordable housing, homelessness prevention and apartment retrofits. “Everybody [in council] signed on to that and it lost overwhelmingly. The old Berkeley would have approved it,” he said. 

In fairness to Berkeley’s tax and spend reputation, California law makes it hard to do either. A two-thirds vote is required to pass a ballot measure raising taxes. 

Until Tuesday, that was almost never a serious hurdle. 

Since 1997 Berkeley voters have passed eight of nine ballot initiatives calling for higher taxes. 

The only tax measure defeated by voters was a 2000 initiative that proposed property tax hikes to pay for new street lights. Though losing, the measure garnered 63 percent of the vote. 

This year, Measure M won only 51 percent of the vote. Measure L, which would have increased property taxes to raise $10 million for pedestrian safety improvements fared a little better, winning 54 percent support. The most expensive ballot initiative, Measure J, which asked property owners to cough up $21.5 million to retrofit old City Hall was soundly defeated. Only 40 percent of voters supported the plan. 

Deputy City Attorney Phil Kamlarz chalked the defeat of the tax measures to the weak economy. “Berkeley voters have been very generous and they may have reached a saturation point,” he said. 

Councilmember Kriss Worthington who championed Measures M and L agreed. “[In other years] the city was awash in cash, people were awash in cash,” he said. 

Now, according to recent budget information, Berkeley is running a $2.1 million deficit, which is projected to swell to $6.4 million in two years. Last month, council approved a temporary spending freeze until plans for the next two-year budget are finalized in June. 

Worthington though didn’t think voter rejection of the ballot measures amounted to a tax revolution. He said that if council had put fewer tax initiatives on the ballot, they may have won enough support to win.  

I think a lot of people saw all the tax measures on the ballot and said ‘OK, I’ll vote for three,’ said Worthington. “If we only had the animal shelter, pedestrian safety and affordable housing [on the ballot], I think they all might have won.” 

With Berkeley lacking in funds and tax hikes rejected, city officials need to find creative ways to fund programs.  

City Housing Director Stephen Barton said he would try to get more grant money to pay for building affordable housing, but said the city might have to tank its program to help keep at-risk, low-income residents from becoming homeless. 

“The city is facing a bunch of nasty trade-offs,” he said. “There are a lot of programs that are all good and important. I don’t know how you make trade-offs between child care and emergency assistance to keep people in their homes.” 

Contact reporter at matt@ 

berkeleydailyplanet.net