Berkeley voters were narrowly in favor of a $300 million infrastructure bond measure in the early returns on election night, while a parcel tax to raise $85 million for the city’s arts programs appeared headed for approval.
Measure U, which was placed on the ballot by the City Council, would authorize the city to issue $300 million in bonds for infrastructure improvement projects. The measure requires a two-thirds majority to pass. As of Tuesday night, 69.4% of the counted votes were in favor of Measure U.
Measure Y is a citizen initiative that proposes a parcel tax of 7 cents per square foot of improvements on properties in the city to raise $85 million over 12 years to support arts institutions, which took a hit during the pandemic.
The measure requires a simple majority to pass and so far, 68% of the counted votes were in favor of the measure.
If approved, Measure U bonds will be used to strengthen the city’s emergency response, including Fire Department facilities and seismic and climate resiliency systems, replace natural gas with electricity in city infrastructure, and improve the city’s parks and recreation facilities, according to the city attorney’s impartial analysis.
To pay the bonds back, the city will impose a property tax over 40 years, costing taxpayers approximately $22 per $100,000 of assessed property value annually. The tax is expected to raise $15.2 million every year.
But opponents said that the measure lacks a comprehensive plan to spend the money, doesn’t commit to specific projects, and doesn’t include a budget for maintaining new facilities.
“High inflation and competing spending priorities, with no blueprint for success, risk taking on enormous debt without addressing Berkeley’s most pressing infrastructure needs,” the argument against Measure U states.
Meanwhile, supporters of Measure Y said in a ballot argument, “Berkeley’s creative economy supports 8,000 jobs, contributes $10 million in annual City revenue, and makes our downtown and neighborhoods more vibrant.”
Opponents argued the measure lacks accountability and that the city should not subsidize arts organizations amid changing audience tastes.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to underwrite an organization’s decision to produce works that discourage paying audiences,” the argument against the measure said.