Berkeley’s soda tax a healthy example
A big knock on San Francisco’s soda tax measure on the ballot next month is that revenue will go straight into the city’s already swelling general fund, mingled with all that other tax money we pay.
In a city with a $9.6 billion annual budget — and with an increased sales tax, transfer tax, a City College parcel tax and a school bond also on the ballot — does San Francisco really need more money just because we want an occasional Pepsi?
“This is a money grab, plain and simple,” said Joe Arellano, spokesman for the campaign to defeat the soda tax, which is funded by the American Beverage Association.
In 2014, soda tax backers structured their ballot measure differently. They earmarked the revenue for children’s physical education and nutrition programs, but under California law, that meant they needed the support of two-thirds of the voters. They received 55 percent of the vote, sinking the measure.
Now, those same folks are going for a pennyper-ounce tax on sugary drinks, with the proceeds not earmarked for anything. That means they need just a simple majority, but it also means there’s a big question mark about how the proceeds will be spent.
To gauge whether we’ll get anything from our soda money, look across the bay to Berkeley. In 2014, it became the first city in the nation to pass a soda tax — a tax that also needed just a simple majority because proceeds went directly to the general fund.
Instead, the city told voters to trust soda tax backers when they pledged to create an expert panel that would advise the City Council on how to spend the soda funds in ways that promoted health and educated the public on the dangers of soda. San Francisco soda tax backers are pledging the same thing, and Oakland and Albany also have virtually the same measures on their ballots.
Berkeley did indeed form a nine-member panel of experts, with one each picked by the council members and mayor. They meet once a month, issue requests for proposals from groups seeking money and make recommendations that must be approved by the council.
So far, the soda tax there has raised about $2 million — and sure enough, about $2 million has been spent. Of that, 42.5 percent has gone to the Berkeley Unified School District for cooking, gardening and nutrition programs. An additional 42.5 percent has gone to community groups, including Ecology Center, Healthy Black Families and the YMCA for their healthrelated programs. The rest has gone to fund the administration of the program.
Xavier Morales ,a member of the expert panel, said the soda industry also blasted Berkeley during its campaign in 2014 for not earmarking the money for a specific purpose. But now those complaints have ceased.
“They’re saying that right now in San Francisco and Oakland, but they can’t point to Berkeley and say we didn’t use it correctly,” Morales said. “I’m really proud of what we’ve done.”
Arellano said Berkeley and San Francisco aren’t good comparisons. The latter is a city and county with many more financial obligations — and is more likely to make a grab at the soda money if it comes up short elsewhere.
Martin Bourque says that’s nonsense. He’s the executive director of the Ecology Center, a nonprofit that works to improve the health and environment of Berkeley residents and that has received $115,000 in soda tax money. It used the money to install eight “hydration stations” at Berkeley High where students can fill their water bottles, give water bottles with messaging about the health impacts of soda to all incoming freshmen, and train young people to work at produce stands and farmers’ markets in low-income neighborhoods.
Bourque said he thinks that if the San Francisco measure passes, the city will follow Berkeley’s lead in funding important health programs.
“San Francisco has a really tremendous history as a national leader in terms of public health,” he said. “I have no question that’s where they’re going to put their money.”
And if they don’t, we’ll certainly let you know about it.
It’s got a good beat: If there’s anything more boring than sitting through a Board of Supervisors meeting, it’s watching one on local cable. Fortunately for those of us who have to do such things for a living — and for those who just really, really love city government — there’s San Francisco Government Jams.
The anonymous people behind the amusing new Facebook page take the funniest, most memorable or most contentious exchanges in city meetings and set them to music.
Their first production in August featured Supervisor Aaron Peskin lecturing his fellow supervisors that they must “live by the ballot, die by the ballot.”
“Supervisor Peskin gave a captivating speech on a highly technical ... planning code amendment,” the anonymous person explained in a Facebook exchange. “We thought it would go well with a rap beat given his passion, and thus San Francisco Government Jams was born!”
Others videos have featured supervisors David Campos and Malia Cohen debating the former’s proposal to create a public advocate position, and former Judge Quentin Kopp’s first appearance as the newest member of the Ethics Commission.
The only clue we got about who these creative people are is that they’re self-described “avid viewers of SFGovTV,” the local cable channel that shows government meetings. OK, that limits the pool to about 17 people in the city. Why the anonymity? “This is about San Francisco government’s best moments, and the entertainment behind them — not us,” the people wrote.
Got theories about who these government and music-loving Facebook users are? Let us know. But we can’t promise to set the answer to music.