San Francisco, California, Soda and Sugary Beverages Tax, Proposition V (November 2016)
| Proposition V: San Francisco Soda and Sugary Beverages Tax |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local business tax Expires in: Ongoing |
| Related articles |
| Local business tax on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Francisco County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| San Francisco, California |
A soda and sugary beverage tax measure was on the ballot for San Francisco voters in San Francisco County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of imposing a tax on all soda and sugary beverages at a rate of 1 cent per ounce. |
| A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving no additional city tax on soda and sugary beverages. |
Election results
| Proposition V | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 237,168 | 62.49% | ||
| No | 142,347 | 37.51% | ||
- Election results from San Francisco Department of Elections
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall the City collect a tax of one cent per ounce from the distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages?[2] |
” |
Simplification digest
The following summary of Proposition V was provided by San Francisco's Ballot Simplification Committee:[1]
|
Fiscal impact
The following fiscal impact statement about Proposition V was provided by the San Francisco Controller:[1]
|
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Vote Yes on V, was the primary campaign effort in support of Proposition V. Endorsements for Vote Yes on V included: American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, California Dental Association, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, Public Health Institute, Prevention Institute, Michael Bloomberg, The American Academy of Pediatrics, Physicians of Social Responsibility San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco Medical Society and more.[3]
Supporters
The following individuals and organizations signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]
- Supervisor Malia Cohen
- Mayor Edwin M. Lee
- Supervisor Eric Mar
- Supervisor Scott Wiener
- Supervisor Mark Farrell
- Supervisor John Avalos
- San Francisco Medical Society
- NAACP
- American Heart Association
- San Francisco Dental Society
- NICOS Chinese Health Coalition
Arguments in favor
Vote Yes on V campaign stated:[3]
| “ | It’s time to stop letting big soda put profits above our children’s health. On November 8th, the health of children in San Francisco relies on us. Proposition V will tax distributors of soda and other sugary drinks that have direct links to obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart and liver disease.
Since passing a similar measure in Berkeley, self-reported consumption of sugary drinks has fallen by 21%, while raising $1.2 Million for school nutrition and public health programs. Simply put, this tax works—and now San Francisco can be a part of the progress.[2] |
” |
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
Scientific evidence demonstrates that there is a direct link between sugary drinks and diseases like obesity, diabetes, dental decay and even liver disease, driving up healthcare costs for everyone. San Francisco pays over 87 million dollars for direct and indirect costs of diabetes. Sugar is a toxin that goes straight to the liver and other vital organs. 46 percent of the population has diabetes or is on the path to getting it. For Latinos and African Americans, the rate is even higher. One of every three children born after 2000 will develop diabetes during their lifetimes. Prop V will help to turn these trends around. Prop V is a one-penny per ounce tax, paid only by the distributors of sodas and sugary drinks, generating $15 million annually that can be used to support health education programs, improving access to drinking water, expanding school nutrition programs, to improve children’s health. Prop V requires the distributors of sugary beverages pay the tax. It is not a grocery tax or a tax on consumers. Berkeley approved a similar measure in 2014, and has been a success. It has raised almost two million dollars per year for health programs, with no negative impacts on businesses or jobs. Prop V is a result of advocates from low-income and communities of color, asking policy leaders to address the health needs of their communities. The American Heart Association, San Francisco Medical Society, San Francisco Dental Society, local doctors, dentists, nurses and public health professionals all urge your support of Proposition V. Please vote yes for children’s health. Vote Yes on Prop V.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Enough Is Enough: Don’t Tax Our Groceries was the primary campaign effort in opposition to Proposition V, supported by the American Beverage Association California PAC.[4]
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]
Troy Reese, owner of Queen’s Louisiana Po Boy Cafe
Arguments against
Enough Is Enough: Don’t Tax Our Groceries campaign stated:[4]
| “ | San Francisco costs enough already – now grocery prices could go way up!
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a ballot measure that could raise prices across the board at restaurants and grocery stores in city limits. San Franciscans are demanding answers! The fact is we have higher priorities for City government than the regulation of our food and beverage choices with new taxes. Before we are forced to pay more at the checkout counter, we deserve some kind of guarantee that those dollars will be spent on the initiatives that matter to us. Without that guarantee, we see these tax proposals for what they are: Half-baked, expensive distractions. San Francisco is already an expensive place to live—we don’t need taxes that make it more expensive to raise a family. We know that these tax proposals will have no real impact on complex diseases like obesity and diabetes. What we do know, however, is that these taxes would disproportionately hurt those who are already struggling to get by.[2] |
” |
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
The politicians say this tax is about health, but not one penny is dedicated to health programs. The official digest states, “The City could use the proceeds of the tax for any governmental purpose.” San Franciscans are already being priced out of our city. Now a few politicians want to make San Francisco even more expensive with a grocery tax — even though voters rejected a similar tax in 2014. The politicians call it a tax on sodas. If you do your own research you will see that is not true. Instead of being imposed directly on beverages, this tax is imposed on “distributors,” including small business owners like me. 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 businesses like mine are under so much pressure from rising costs we will be forced to pass 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. That is not fair. 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.” Even the chief sponsor of this tax admits it hurts poor people the most. Her direct quote is: “This tax definitely affects those folks at the bottoms.” Over a thousand neighborhood grocers and restaurant owners oppose Proposition V because it is a tax on groceries. Enough is enough. We have higher priorities, and the last thing we need is a grocery tax. Vote NO on Proposition V.[2] |
” |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $2,557,531 |
| Opposition: | $9,796,500 |
Support
In support of Proposition V, there were $2,557,531 in contributions and $2,613,127 in expenditures.[5]
Top donors
As of October 23, 2016, the following were the top donors in support of the measure:[5]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Michael Bloomberg | $275,000 |
| Action Now Initiative | $185,000 |
| Laura Arnold | $130,000 |
| John Arnold | $130,000 |
| Dignity Health | $50,000 |
Opposition
In opposition to Proposition V, there were $9,796,500 in contributions and $10,026,262 in expenditures.[5]
Top donors
As of October 23, 2016, the following was the top donor in opposition of the measure:[5]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| American Beverage Association California PAC | $9,795,000 |
Media editorials
Support
- The Bay Area Reporter recommended a yes vote for Proposition V.[6]
- San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Don’t believe the hype, well-funded by the soda industry: This is not a “grocery tax.” It’s a tax on soda, levied on the distributor, not on the store. Its aim is not so much to bring money into the city but to discourage people (particularly kids) from buying a product that can lead to serious health problems...But here’s the main point: It’s time for the country to start looking at soda the way we’ve looked at other health threats like tobacco. If SF approves this, it will push the national issue. Vote yes."[7]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "The punishing effects can’t be ignored. In San Francisco, the city’s budget analyst blames overconsumption of sugary drinks for up to $28 million in public health treatment bills. The connections and scientific findings should be clear. Frequent sips of soda can damage health and impose social costs. That’s why it’s wise to back a tax on sugar-laced sodas, sports and energy drinks that will drive down consumption and pay for the public damage. It’s not a nanny-state intrusion when the public seeks to lessen the broad impacts of a sugar-loaded diet. Voters in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany have a chance to further a sensible public health trend by supporting levies on sugary drinks. Berkeley has already imposed a tax credited with helping lower use in that city. There’s another level to the story. If three cities of differing size and demographics approve a tax, a nationwide push will gather strength. A more positive and healthy trend could reach an irreversible turning point."[8]
- San Francisco Examiner: "Some have criticized the measure for trying to police public health with what they have called a regressive tax. Cohen countered that the health risks associated with drinking soda, like type II diabetes and heart disease, disproportionately affect low-income residents. A similar measure in Berkeley passed in 2014. Researchers from UC Berkeley found that after the tax was passed, consumption of soda in Berkeley was reduced in low-income populations by more than 20 percent."[9]
Opposition
Email editor@ballotpedia.org to submit media editorials that should be posted here.
Path to the ballot
San Francisco's city code allows four or more members of the San Francisco board of supervisors to sponsor a measure and put it before voters by signing the proposed ordinance and submitting it to the San Francisco department of elections. The following supervisors signed the ordinance proposed by Proposition V and submitted it on June 21, 2016:[1]
- Eric Mar - District 1
- Mark Farrell - District 2
- Scott Wiener - District 8
- Malia Cohen - District 10
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco soda tax Proposition V. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
- San Francisco County Elections Office website
- Vote Yes on V San Francisco Soda Tax
- Don't tax our groceries - Vote No on Prop V
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 San Francisco Elections Office, "San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot," accessed September 26, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Vote Yes on V,"Endorsements," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Don't Tax Our Groceries,"About," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 San Francisco Ethics Commission,"Campaign Finance Dashboards - June 7, 2016 and November 8, 2016 Elections - Total Contributions and Contributors," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ The Bay Area Reporter,"B.A.R. election endorsements," accessed October 9, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Bay Guardian,"ENDORSEMENTS! The case for six progressive supes, Kim for state Senate …," accessed October 6, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle,"Bay Area voters should approve soda taxes," September 3, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner,"Examiner Endorsements: City measures," October 13, 2016
| |||||
