SODA TAX VOTE SHOWS SPLIT AMONG CITY NEIGHBORHOODS
MAYOR JAVIER GONZALES DEFENDS DECISION TO PUT THE ISSUE TO A VOTE
“One Santa Fe” was a slogan Mayor Javier Gonzales used during his 2014 election campaign and the theme of his first State of the City address a year later.
But results of Tuesday’s special election on whether Santa Fe should impose a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to help fund early childhood education programs tells “A Tale of Two Cities.”
While mainly north and east side City Council districts 1 and 2 were split on the vote, districts 3 and 4 that make up the south and west sides voted overwhelmingly against the tax, according to unofficial results expected to be made official today.
The sides aren’t just separated geographically; there’s a significant economic gap.
Affluent District 1 — demographically an older population with a higher percentage of retirees and predominantly Anglo — was the only section of the city to vote in favor of the tax, albeit by just 15 votes. The vote was also close in neighboring District 2 — which contains affluent neighborhoods east of St. Francis Drive as well as some more diverse areas west of the thoroughfare — where 31 more people voted against the tax than for it.
Combining the totals in the two districts, 50.07 percent of the 12,224 voters voted against the tax; the difference is just 16 votes.
But in the younger, lower-income, more Hispanic districts 3 and 4, slightly more than 70 percent of 7,690 voters opposed the tax.
The election gained national attention as soda taxes proposals have become a trend around the country. On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board opined on the Santa Fe election under the headline “The Soda Tax Class Revolt: Santa Fe’s Poor Reject a Tax on Sugary Drinks Peddled by the Rich.”
“The rich” is a reference to billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who provided the pro-tax campaign with a $400,000 cash donation and more than $750,000 worth of in-kind assistance. The WSJ piece, somewhat glaringly, made no mention of the $1.52 million the American Beverage Association contributed to the effort to defeat the tax.
“Progressives love soda taxes because they raise money for government while telling commoners how to behave,” the editorial said. “Most commoners would rather decide for themselves.”