S.F., 'Berzerkly' Once Again at the Epicenter of PC-ness

When it comes to the 2014 election, the Bay Area is being watched all across the country. Medicinal cannabis? No. Emergency funding for municipal services? No. Relief for the homeless? No.

Both San Francisco and Berkeley voters are considering soda taxes. Yep, with all the other more pressing social and service needs in both municipalities, the issue du jour is a tax on your Mountain Dew… excuse me, “sugary beverages.”

They’re not the first cities to try to slap a tax on sugary beverages. In California alone Richmond and El Monte tried similar measures in 2012 — and failed miserably. New York City tried to ban large servings and failed as well. And despite the fact that such taxes hit low-income families the hardest – they’re still on the ballot.

If either one of the current measures passes it will be first in the country. The two proposals are similar, yet key differences might make one or the other more likely to be passed. Needless to say, the American Beverage Association is opposing both propositions.

San Francisco’s Proposition E places a 2 cents an ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. So why is S.F. (and Berkeley) so intent on taxing sugary drinks? They say it’s a health issue. According to the pediatric endocrinology department at U.C.-San Francisco, sugar-sweetened beverages are concentrated doses of sugar. For example, a can of Coke has nine teaspoons’ worth. That extra sugar is helping drive up the rate of type 2 diabetes, among other illnesses.

The idea of a sugary-beverage tax is to makes those drinks, not just sodas but other beverages such as energy and sports drinks, more expensive and thus consumption is reduced (no duh). So by de facto social engineering, you will stop drinking ‘sugary beverages’ and go with alternative drinks like beer.

The money generated by taxing your soda pop is specifically earmarked for nutrition and physical activity programs, mainly in schools and parks... and because Prop. E’s funds are earmarked, a two-thirds vote is needed to approve it.

That’s different from the soda tax measure across The Bay. Berkeley’s Measure D would mandate a penny-an-ounce tax. Unlike S.F., the proceeds, estimated at a million dollars per year, are not earmarked. That means Measure D needs only a simple majority to pass: 50 percent plus one vote.

It also means the money can be spent anywhere the city wants to spend it and that approach failed in Richmond and El Monte. But gosh, Berkeley’s Measure D does create a panel of health experts to advise the City Council on health programs worth funding. And the American Beverage Association is spending close to $1.5 million to oppose Measure D.

Bottom line: On Election Day, whatever voters decide will resound nationally. Approval would say voters think of sugar-sweetened beverages in a similar way as other health-harming products like cigarettes and alcohol… consumption of which, like soda, is by personal choice, not government mandate. But if the Libs of Berkeley and S.F. say nada, it’s likely to reflect what most people think of the proposals: “Quit trying to impose your morals on me. My life; my choice.”