Features

What if your neighbors could organize, with the city’s blessing, to force you to pay an additional $2,000 a year in property taxes to improve their views of the bay and increase property values? 

That’s exactly what could happen if homeowners in my Berkeley Hills neighborhood vote to create the Thousand Oaks Heights Applicant Funded Utility Undergrounding District No. 1. 

The district is the brainchild of a handful of neighbors and includes 105 homes located on Kentucky and Colorado avenues and parts of Michigan, Boynton, Maryland and Vassar avenues. Originally the district was supposed to be larger but grew smaller after organizers failed to convince enough residents that the project was worth its then-estimated $2 million price tag.  

The story began in December, 2000, when the city endorsed policies and procedures for creation of privately financed utility undergrounding districts. Key among the procedures was 70 percent neighborhood approval and the means to pay up-front design costs. More than 70 percent of my neighbors chipped in $2,000-$2,500 each to pay for a feasibility and design study, which cost more than $186,000. At the same time the council approved the utility undergrounding procedures, it voted down a proposal to allocate city funds to pay for design studies for low-income neighborhoods, on the grounds it could not afford it. Although, the move made sense, given the city’s budget woes, everyone’s tax dollars paid for the considerable time city staff have devoted over the last three and one-half years to the Thousand Oaks Heights project.  

After the project estimate rose to $2.6 million, the City Council decided on June 1 to revise its own rules and lowered from 70 to 60 the percentage of homeowners needed to approve creation of the district. A few days later, ballots were mailed to residents with the revised assessment figures. Bids for the project will be opened on July 12 and on July 20 the council will hold a public hearing and afterward tally the votes.  

If the vote is yes, the city will issue bonds to pay for the project and residents will have to either pony up between $21,000 and $22,000, or be assessed an additional $2,000 a year for 30 years to retire the bonds, or a total of $60,000. Should every homeowner opt for the 30-year installation plan, the city could pocket tens of thousands of dollars in interest each year. Not a bad windfall for city with a $10 million deficit. 

The pro-undergrounding arguments range from safety to greater property values to neighborhood beautification. The safety claim is, at best, dubious, because virtually all the streets surrounding the tiny district have overhead utility lines as does Spruce Avenue, the only major street into the neighborhood. In the event of an earthquake or firestorm underground utilities will be of little use if all roads into the neighborhood are littered with downed utility poles. So what’s left is greed and better views Bay for some residents but not all. 

What elevates the story beyond a petty squabble between the haves and have-mores is the role of city government in supporting my neighbors in proposing a tax increase that it won’t dare put on a citywide election ballot. For my partner and me , the assessment would increase our annual property taxes by 25 percent. For others, in particular retired, longtime residents living on fixed income, taxes would double. 

The city says it was the district organizers’ idea to lower the voter approval percentage and the district organizers say it was the city’s idea, or more specifically Mayor Tom Bates. Either way, few except the organizers knew about the deal until a neighbor read about it in the Berkeley Daily Planet. When asked to explain themselves, district organizers and city officials cite Proposition 218, which stipulates only simple majority approval is needed for “special benefit” assessments compared with a two-thirds majority for citywide tax increases to fund general services. In other words, to paraphrase former President Bill Clinton, they did it because they could.  

In some countries, the practice of paying for what ought-to-be basic services is called bribery. In America, it’s called checkbook democracy. The difference here is that, unlike fat cats who use their money to legally buy favorable legislation, my neighbors have been empowered by the city to dig deep into my pocket to buy something me and others don’t want.  

Instead of acting in the best interests of all the district’s residents, city officials are acting as cheerleaders. Council Member Hawley even links to the private web site for the Thousand Oaks Heights project from her page on the city’s website. City Engineer Loren Jensen suggested to my partner that given her concern about costs she could sell her home before the assessment was levied. After seeing his words printed in a flyer, he fired off via e-mail a terse non-denial denial. When asked what might become of retired people on a fixed incomes should the district pass, Council Member Hawley opined they might be able to take out a lien against their property. She also loudly complained that her remarks were taken out of context. 

But the only things out of context are the priorities of a city that would empower your neighbors to jack up property taxes so they can have a better view. So, neighbors beware and come to the July 20 public hearing on the Thousand Oaks Heights district at 7 p.m. at City Hall. Tell the council, no to taxation-by-neighbor for frivolous, costly neighborhood improvements. Tell the council, no to using your tax dollars to enable the haves to have more. 

Erna Smith is a Berkeley resident and a professor of journalism at San Francisco State University..