Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Oakland, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax, Measure HH (November 2016)
| Measure HH: Oakland Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local business tax Expires in: Never |
| Related articles |
| Local business tax on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Alameda County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| Oakland, California |
A soda tax measure was on the ballot for Oakland voters in Alameda County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing a tax of one cent per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages. |
| A no vote was a vote against establishing a tax of one cent per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages. |
Election results
| Measure HH | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 107,405 | 61.35% | ||
| No | 67,655 | 38.65% | ||
- Election results from Alameda County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ | Shall the City of Oakland impose a 1 cent per ounce general tax on the distribution of sugar sweetened beverages, including products such as sodas, sports drinks, sweetened teas, energy drinks, but exempting: milk products, 100% juice, baby formula, diet drinks, or drinks taken for
medical reasons; and providing an exemption for small businesses?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Oakland City Attorney:
| “ |
Currently the City of Oakland does not tax sugar-sweetened beverages. This measure would impose a City excise tax of one cent per fluid ounce on the distribution of sugarsweetened beverages in Oakland, as well as added-calorie sweeteners that are used to make sugar-sweetened beverages. “Distribution” would include the sale of beverages or sweeteners by one business to another (such as a sale from a wholesale business to a retail business) or the transfer of beverages or sweeteners from a wholesale unit of a business to one of its retail units. “Distribution” would not include retail sales to customers. The distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages would not be taxed more than once in the chain of commerce. The tax would be imposed starting on July 1, 2017. Revenue from the tax would be deposited into the City’s general fund, and the City could use the revenue for any lawful governmental purpose. The measure defines the beverages that qualify and do not qualify as “sugar-sweetened beverages.” The measure requires that any distributor of sugar-sweetened beverages or beverage sweeteners register with the City. The measure also identifies the distributors that would be required to collect the tax. The tax would not apply to any distributor that the City has no legal authority to tax. The tax also would not apply to any distributor that is a small business. “Small Business” is defined as a business with less than $100,000 in yearly gross sales, if the business distributes sugar-sweetened beverages directly to consumers. The measure includes various administration and enforcement provisions. The City’s Tax Administrator would establish rules and regulations for administration and enforcement. The measure imposes penalties on distributors who fail to pay the tax and authorizes the City to examine distributors’ books and records. The measure requires that the City keep certain information and documents in connection with the tax confidential. The measure would establish a new nine-member Community Advisory Board with specific membership requirements. Board members would be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council in accordance with City Charter section 601. The Board would be responsible for (1) making recommendations to the City Council on setting up and/or funding programs that prevent or reduce the health consequences of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages, and (2) reporting on the implementation of the measure. However, the City Council would have final authority to determine the use of revenue from the beverage tax. The Oakland City Council placed this measure on the ballot. A “yes” vote for the measure supports the passage of the tax; a “no” vote opposes the tax. A majority vote (i.e. more than 50% of the votes cast) is required to pass the measure. s[2] |
” |
| —Oakland City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[3]
- Mayor, Libby Schaaf
- Vice-Mayor, Annie Campbell Washington
- Arthur M. Chen, M.D., President, Alameda-Contra Costa County Medical Association
- Jane Garcia, CEO, La Clinica
- Brittni Chicuata, American Heart Association
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
Vote YES on MEASURE HH to protect our children’s health. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that sugary drinks causes widespread health problems, starting in childhood. One-third of all children, and nearly half of African-American and Latino children, are predicted to develop diabetes in their lifetimes. In addition to diabetes, tooth decay, heart disease and strokes are linked to sugary drink consumption. Companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi spend hundreds of millions of dollars to aggressively market unhealthy sugary drinks to children. Measure HH places a 1₵ per ounce tax on the distributors of high-calorie, low-nutrition sugary drinks. Despite the lies of the soda industry, Measure HH does not tax “groceries.” Measure HH establishes a community advisory board of health professionals, parents, and community residents. The board will advise the City Council on how best to support education and prevention programs. Berkeley passed a similar measure that has been a huge success. Studies show it raises almost two million dollars per year for vital health and nutrition programs, with no negative impacts on businesses or jobs. A wide range of organizations, healthcare and community leaders endorse Measure HH, Including the American Heart Association, EVERY Oakland elected official, the Alameda County Dental Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the California Diabetes Association. Don’t be fooled, the campaign against Measure HH comes from the corporate giants Coca Cola and PepsiCo who have spent millions of dollars to confuse the manipulate voters. Even small business owners who appear in their advertising now say they were lied to by the Soda Industry. Vote Yes on Measure HH to fund education programs for children and adults about diseases related to sugar-sweetened beverages. It’s time the beverage industries invest in Oakland’s communities and not profit off them. [2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Jobs and Housing Coalition
- Bishop Robert L. Jackson
- Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce
- Asian Americans for Political Advancement
- Abdul Taleb, Mi Carnal Market
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
Oakland has so many pressing problems and higher priorities-the last thing we need is a tax on groceries. The politicians call it a tax on sodas. If you do the research for yourself you will find that is not true. Instead of being imposed directly on beverages, this tax is imposed on “distributors,” including small business owners. This is because state law restricts the ability of local governments to impose a sales tax directly on most beverages. Nothing prevents this tax from being passed on to any item in our grocery stores and restaurants. Small business will end up passing this tax on to customers-meaning higher food and grocery prices. So even if consumers don’t buy sodas, their grocery bills could still go up. Senator Bernie Sanders disagrees with these types of regressive taxes, saying it is “… a regressive grocery tax that would disproportionately affect low-income and middle-class Americans.” The politicians say this tax is about health, but not one penny is dedicated to health programs. The official measure states, “Revenue from the tax would be deposited into the City’s general fund, and the City could use the revenue for any lawful governmental purpose.” Hundreds of neighborhood grocers, restaurant owners, and concerned residents oppose Measure HH because it is a tax on food and groceries. We have many more important problems to solve in Oakland. The last thing we need is a grocery tax that will make Oakland even more expensive. Enough is enough-Vote NO on the Grocery Tax, No on Measure HH. You can do your own research and learn the facts yourself at www.NoOaklandGroceryTax.com.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Oakland, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oakland Local business tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Alameda County, "November 8, 2016 General Election Local Measures," accessed October 12, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Alameda County, "Measure HH," accessed October 30, 2016
| |||||
