Page One

Say No to New Homeowner Tax

By ELLIOT COHEN
Friday October 10, 2003

As a tenant the proposal to increase homeowners taxes by $250 annually will cost me nothing, but I oppose it because it is wrong. It is wrong to scare Berkeley residents with polling questions threatening to cut off emergency services unless we agree to increase taxes. It is wrong because homeowners are not all rich, some struggle to get by or are dependent on fixed incomes. But mostly, it is wrong because it is unnecessary. 

A mayor who ran on a platform of making Berkeley an environmental leader should consider environmental taxes, such as added parking permit fees for SUVs, hefty fines for improper disposal of old computers, and point of purchase taxes for plastic containers and disposable lighters. Aside from bringing in tax revenue, in the long term such taxes reduce city expenses by diminishing the volume of waste we pay to landfill, because those seeking to avoid the tax curtail their use of polluting disposables. And speaking of revenue based on sound environmental policy, why isn’t the city doing more to get UC to pay their fair share?  

The city may not be able to tax UC but we need not subsidize them either. The city’s decision not to sue over North Side development or the Molecular Foundry are excellent examples. The city attorney claims Berkeley is helpless because UC is sovereign and can develop without city permission. But sovereignty does not prevent the city from suing over environmental impacts. If Berkeley had sued we would do better, because sovereignty cuts both ways. Yes, UC can develop without our permission, but they also must bear responsibility for that development. Berkeley has no obligation to provide free or subsidized services. We could control UC development by simply insisting they pay their fair share. Payment for city services is a legitimate legal demand, which is why “mitigation agreements” provide compensation for specific city services. The fact that UC pays less for these services than it costs to provide them is due to bad negotiation, not the city’s hopeless legal position. 

Sewer services are an excellent example. Under federal law, every thirty years sewer systems need to be replaced and upgraded. Some estimate the city has deferred nearly a billion dollars in maintenance, meaning some sewer lines are in horrible shape. According to the city budget, over the five-year period running from fiscal years 1999 to 2005 the city will spend approximately 39 million dollars on sanitary sewer maintenance and replacement, with over 4 million more going to storm sewers. In total, Berkeley spends approximately 44 million dollars for sewers every five years. With a population of 100,000 people, approximately 30,000 of whom are students, the university should pay approximately one third—over fourteen million dollars! 

But sweetheart deals approved by City Council have UC paying less then two million dollars during that five year period! This means Berkeley homeowners subsidize UC to the tune of approximately four million dollars annually—and that’s just for sewer service. It doesn’t begin to cover what UC owes us for costs associated with other environmental impacts, such as increased traffic. To make matters worst, deferred sewer maintenance is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. If sewers are not properly maintained damaged pipes can burst and flood neighborhoods, spreading pollution that can cause serious disease.  

Bad legal advice has caused the city to settle for chump change. City Council should renegotiate and demand UC pay for the full cost of city services, both now, and as the cost expands due to further UC development. If UC refuses the city should selectively stop providing non-emergency services. If UC sues, the city can have the court determine the true cost of city services and seek equitable relief, pleading, if necessary, malpractice on the part of the city attorney. 

Those in city government, including council members and the city attorney, whose sweetheart deals are costing taxpayers a fortune, have a lot to answer for, especially to homeowners, whose taxes they want to increase despite the fact that hefty sewer fees are helping subsidize UC development. Insisting that UC pay their fair share would discourage further expansion, eliminate the “need” to increase homeowner taxes, and enable Berkeley to free millions of tax dollars for parks, libraries, health care and other services.  

 

Elliot Cohen practiced law in New York City for seven years. He is presently serves on the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission.