Berkeley School + City Measures

• E1: YES YES for Berkeley’s schools
• T1: YES to fix city infrastructure
• U1: YES YES to fund affordable housing with a tax on landlord’s rent receipts
• DD: NO NO to reject large landlords’ deceptive smoke screen that has worse policy
• V1: YES to let the city spend money it has raised in taxes
• W1: YES to use citizen redistricting commission set city council districts
• X1: YES to give matching funds to Mayoral/Council candidates
• Y1: YES to allow 16&17 year-olds to vote in school board elections
• Z1: YES to allow city to build homes for low-income families
• AA: YES to clean up rent control provisions
• BB & CC: NO, because Berkeley City Council reached a good compromise on minimum wage

Berkeley Schools

E1: YES YES for Berkeley’s schools

This is the BSEP program that supplies 20% of the funds for Berkeley schools. It’s supported by a wide array of people. Again, no argument filed against it, no organized opposition. This funds things the state should fund (small class sizes, art, music), but stopped funding over the past generation because of Prop 13.

Berkeley City Measures

T1: YES to fix city infrastructure

This would authorize a $100 million by the city to repair basic city infrastructure, such as streets, sidewalks, storm drains, senior/youth/recreation centers. The cost would be about $1.75/month per $100,000 of assessed value (and remember, assessed value is usually below market value). This is yet another measure with no argument filed against it.

U1: YES YES to fund affordable housing with a tax on landlord’s rent receipts

AND DD: NO NO to reject large landlords’ deceptive smoke screen that has worse policy

There are two measures on the ballot that would increase funds for affordable homes for low-income families and pay for that by increasing an existing tax on the rents that landlords collect. Both measures would prohibit landlords from passing the tax on to existing renters. Like Measure A1, Measure U1 is a great measure: it pays for a good thing (affordable housing) with a progressive tax where the thing being taxed (rental income) is linked to the benefit being provided.

Measure U1 is the good one.

• Measure U1 would raise more funds ($3-3.5 million in the first year, vs. $1.4 million for DD) by increasing the tax on rent receipts from 1.08% to 2.88% (vs. to 1.5% for DD).
• Measure U1 exempts the smallest landlords (anyone with fewer than 5 units) -- that’s good because smaller landlords tend to be less wealthy than large landlords. By contrast, Measure DD would increase the tax on smaller landlords as well.
• Measure U1 was supported by the entire Berkeley City Council, League of Women Voters, Democratic Party, Bay Area Community Land Trust -- good people. Measure DD, by contrast, was placed on the ballot by some of the largest landlords in Berkeley (who then got someone else to sign the ballot arguments) -- that helps understand why they did not exempt smaller landlords.

So why are we getting lots of mailers attacking Measure U1? First answer is that the big landlords have lots of money and are spending it to try to avoid having to pay higher taxes. Second answer is that there’s a provision in U1 that DD’s backers are grabbing onto: U1 exempts new units for the first 12 years after they’re built. DD’s backers criticize that provision as beneficial to developers. But if that were true, you wouldn’t expect to see the WHOLE Berkeley City Council supporting U1. The real reasons for that provision are that (1) we don’t want to discourage new construction and (2) to correct for the fact that new units are property-taxed at higher rates than older units (again, thanks to Prop 13).

Vote Yes on U1, No on DD.

V1: YES to let the city spend money it has raised in taxes

Sigh. Here’s what I wrote 4 years ago: “It is really dumb that we have to vote on this every four years. If you want details, see what I wrote in 2008.” As in 2012, no one filed any argument against V1.

W1: YES to use citizen redistricting commission set city council districts

Do you remember voting to have California establish a citizen redistricting commission in 2012? I supported that at the state level (see writeup) and I support it for Berkeley. This would have the city set up a citizen redistricting commission after each census (every 10 years), to redraw the city council district lines. Supported by the local League of Women Voters, NAACP, and ASUC. Nobody wrote an opposition statement and there is no organized opposition.

X1: YES to give matching funds to Mayoral/Council candidates

This is a very small version of public funding of elections. For candidates who agree to a reasonable cap on contributions ($50 or less), the city would provide matching funds (up to $40,000 for council candidates, up to $120,000 for mayoral candidates). I have a small quibble that this requires money from the General Fund without a revenue source, but it isn’t too big -- about $500,000 per year. And nobody filed an argument against it.

Y1: YES to allow 16&17 year-olds to vote in school board elections

Since my 15 year-old is helping me research and write these positions, it would be pretty toady of me not to support allowing him to vote on school board candidates.

Z1: YES to allow city to build homes for low-income families

Aargh, this is another thing we shouldn’t have to vote on, but we do. Article 34 (okay, XXXIV) of the state constitution requires a city’s voters grant prior approval before anybody can create certain kinds of below-market-rate homes in the city. My friend Nathan Landau says this came from “anti-communist hysteria in the 1950s.” We’ve done this before -- in 1977, 1981, and 2000. Now we’ve almost used up our 2000 allocation (we’ve done 421 homes, at a pathetically low rate of 26 homes per year). This allows us to develop, construct, or acquire another 500 homes -- hopefully it will take less than another 16 years to use that allocation. This does not approve or fund any particular project. Oh, and nobody filed an argument against it.

AA: YES to clean up rent control provisions

This makes a bunch of technical changes to Berkeley’s “Rent Stabilization Ordinance.” Nobody filed an argument against it, so I honestly didn’t bother to read it very closely.

BB & CC: NO, because Berkeley City Council reached a good compromise on minimum wage

These were going to be two competing measures about the timing for Berkeley raising its minimum wage. Happily, the city council and major stakeholders on the issue forged a compromise that they passed at the city council in late August. That was too late to pull these ballot measures back but early enough to file arguments. As a result, the Voter Information Pamphlet has no argument FOR either BB or CC and includes the same argument AGAINST both BB and CC. Argument is signed by labor, chamber of commerce, Berkeley for Working Families, and both Capitelli and Arreguin. Vote no on both BB & CC.

DD: NO NO, see above.

If you didn’t read it the first time, please see above.