Piedmont property owners are unlikely to have to pay more in taxes when they sell or transfer their real estate property as Measure TT was voted down, according to Tuesday’s unofficial election results.
The measure needed a majority of Yes votes to pass and was just shy with 49.4% with two of two precincts reporting. The measure was shy of passing by 54 votes, according to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters office.
The tax would have raised about $950,000 a year to pay for city services and maintain and repair facilities such as police and fire stations, recreational facilities, and other infrastructure, according to the county elections office.
Proponents including all city councilmembers sought to align Piedmont with other East Bay cities by raising the tax from $13 to $17.50 for every $1,000 worth of property sold.
Eric Wong, president of the Bridge Association of Realtors, disagreed in a written opposition to the measure, saying the tax would be the highest in the state.
Moreover, Wong was especially concerned that the money could be used for anything city leaders wanted to use it for, which is clear from the language in the measure.
Proponents said that the transfer tax is one of the few ways the city generates revenue to pay for services such as police and fire and that the tax has been the same for the past 27 years.
Measure UU
In a separate decision, a voter effort to save Piedmont’s community pool appears to have worked.
Measure UU narrowly passed with 68.8% of the vote, surpassing the needed margin of two-thirds by about 2 percent.
The measure will raise $19.5 million in bonds to pay for the construction of new pool facilities while costing homeowners $26 in additional taxes annually for every $100,000 in assessed value on their home.
The increased taxes will raise about $1.3 million a year.
The argument in support of the measure was signed by five people including Mayor Robert McBain and Councilmember Betsy Smegal Andersen.
Andy Wasserman, a retired chief financial officer and Larry Miller, a certified financial planner, wrote in opposition of the measure, saying that the idea is “ill-timed” given that “we are experiencing the worst pandemic in a century, with no end in sight.”
But the two agreed that a new pool is needed.
