Berkeley Measures - Nov. 2024

Here are my recommendations on Berkeley’s 12 (!!) ballot measures.  

Berkeley Measures

W: Yes to Update/Extend Berkeley’s Transfer Tax to Pay for Homelessness Services

X: Yes to Support Berkeley’s Libraries 

Y: Yes to Support Berkeley Parks

Z: Yes to Extend Sugary Beverages Tax

AA: Yes to Extend Voter-Approved Spending Limits

BB+CC: NO on two flawed Ordinances to modify Berkeley’s Rent Control system

DD: No Endorsement on Prohibition of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

EE: No to Paving-Focused Measure

FF: YES for Safer + Smoother Streets for Everyone

GG: NO on Poorly Crafted Measure for a Large Buildings Fossil Fuel Tax

HH: NO on Extremely Poorly Designed Indoor Air Quality Measure

See separate posts for recommendations on Berkeley elected officials (city council, school board, rent board), other elected officials (from President to local districts + Alameda County) and the state propositions (coming soon!).

For details on Berkeley's measures, read on ...

Berkeley Measures

W: Yes to Update/Extend Berkeley’s Transfer Tax to Pay for Homelessness Services

This is a reasonable measure to update and extend the timeframe for Berkeley’s real estate transfer tax, whose funds are used for services for people experiencing homelessness. The measure adjusts tax rates to reflect Berkeley’s rising housing prices and institutes a new bracket for sales prices over $3 million. There’s no organized opposition -- the only person who signed the ballot argument against it is an anti-tax activist who may not even live in Berkeley. 

X: Yes to Support Berkeley’s Libraries 

This measure would add a new tax to supplement Berkeley’s existing library tax. Since Berkeley’s libraries get $0 from the city’s general fund, they need this funding to handle increasing costs and responsibilities. The impact would be $60/year for a 1000-square foot home. No argument against Measure X was filed. 

Y: Yes to Support Berkeley Parks

This measure would increase Berkeley’s existing parks tax to maintain and renovate our many great parks. The impact would be $44/year for a 1000-square foot home. No argument against Measure Y was filed. 

Z: Yes to Extend Sugary Beverages Tax

Passing this measure will extend in perpetuity a $0.01/ounce tax on sugary beverages that 76% of Berkeley voters approved in November 2014. I supported the initial tax in 2014. The tax has worked -- compared to other similar cities without such taxes, sugary drink consumption has declined and water consumption has gone up. That’s gotta be good for people’s health.  

AA: Yes to Extend Voter-Approved Spending Limits

Every four years we have to vote to allow the city to spend money that taxpayers have already authorized raising. To see why, see what I wrote in 2008 (and have referenced every 4 years since then). 

BB + CC: NO on two flawed Ordinances to modify Berkeley’s Rent Control system

Two different measures propose complex changes to Berkeley’s rent control system. There’s a tenant-sponsored measure and a landlords-sponsored one. Neither has shown that it has the right combination of being necessary AND not having key flaws, so I’m voting No on both BB and CC. If both pass, the one with more votes will go into effect and the other will not. 

See my lengthy explanation here. 

DD - No Endorsement on Prohibition of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

I don’t want “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” (CAFOs) in Berkeley -- they’re gross. But this measure is entirely symbolic in Berkeley. This measure was originally drafted to influence Golden Gate Fields, which has now shut down and will be replaced by some combination of parkland, homes, and shops -- but no CAFOs. And there aren’t any other CAFOs in Berkeley, so DD won’t do anything. 

So it looks to me like a symbolic and performative measure that will not actually help any animals or people. Better to have this discussion in places that actually have CAFO’s -- like Sonoma County, where a CAFO-ban is also on the ballot. 

So … I’m sure it will pass, but I’m not sure I’ll add my vote to it. 

EE + FF: YES on FF / NO on EE - Safer + Smoother Streets for Everyone

There are two competing measures that both would fund safety improvements and repairs for Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks. They’re complicated to unravel and they relate to an area where I have a couple decades of work experience (transportation policy), so apologies in advance for the very long writeup. If both pass, the one with more votes will go into effect and the other will not. 

I’m voting YES on FF and No on EE. See my long explanation here. 

GG: NO on Poorly Crafted Measure for a Large Buildings Fossil Fuel Tax

At first blush, Measure GG looked good: it taxes something we want to reduce (natural gas use) and uses the revenues to support good things. But after I read more about its impacts and the nuances of the measure, I concluded that Measure GG is a poorly-crafted measure that won’t actually incentivize lower emissions in a fair and sustainable way. I hope proponents will go back to the drawing board and work with the city to put a better plan forward. 

I'm voting No on GG. For details, see this writeup. 

HH: NO on Extremely Poorly Designed Indoor Air Quality Measure

[Updated writeup as of 10/24/2024]

When I first sent out this guide, I was just “leaning No”, but now I’m a hard NO on HH.  

Measure HH would:

1. require the city to adopt a set of indoor air quality standards for city-owned buildings; 
2. specify that the city could not use certain technologies to comply with the resulting rule; 
3. require the city to repair/close/evacuate buildings that violate these standards; and 
4. create a private right to sue the city over the standards

I’m a big fan of indoor air quality, and COVID certainly showed us the importance of having good quality HVAC systems. 

But I have four main concerns:

1. the cost + complexity to implement HH;
2. putting this requirement in place via ballot initiative means that if there are problems in the implementation process, it would take another voter-approved measure to fix it;
3. HH would impose significant costs without any way to pay for it; and 
4. creating a private right to sue worries me, particularly since it looks from my quick read like it has stringent compliance requirements

The city estimates that it will cost $2-4 million just to assess its 95 facilities and determine which will have to comply, and an unknown amount more above that to actually comply. HH proponents, of course, say that estimate is overblown. But I can totally believe it would cost the city $21-42k per building to assess its facilities, particularly if they’d have to do any engineering. The cost to implement would be … unknown. 

The HH campaign website claims that healthy buildings will pay for themselves -- which they might in a grand societal sense, because ... public health (that is, the city spending money could reduce health care costs and lost productivity, etc.). But the city would still have to spend the money and get that money from somewhere, and HH doesn’t address that problem. 

Further, the measure requires that if any of the required systems malfunctions, the building must be shut down and the city must provide alternate services within 24 hours. Are these people for real? Do they have any idea how complicated it is to run city services? You can’t just find a new fire station or child care center on 24 hours notice. 

Former councilmember and policy superwonk Lori Droste described HH’s impact as follows: 

"Council is going to have to find $4 million dollars up front (and potentially cost other programs) and shut down city-owned or city-leased buildings that could offer childcare, important city services, etc. It is hard to imagine a measure more reckless in undermining its own stated goal."

And the HH campaign website is either confused or misleading -- it provides data and citations from the NY Times and WHO, but if you look at those citations, they’re all about outdoor air quality; there's no mention of indoor air quality in either document they cite. That makes me wonder if they were just as sloppy in writing the measure in the first place. 

The Mayor and two councilmembers (Wengraf, Humbert) signed the argument against HH. They say the city is already doing lots of upgrades funded by the 2016 Measure T1. They poke some holes in the HH campaign’s arguments (the city did spend the $67 million from ARRA, for example). They conclude: 

“We can have both safe buildings and fund essential city services. Vote No on Measure HH. Tell proponents to go back to the drawing board and work with city leaders to come up with a more sensible and less costly plan.” 

I agree and I'll vote No.