Quick Take
Measure Z, the “sugary drink tax,” has raised high emotion and big money in the city of Santa Cruz and is a potential litmus test for the state’s 2018 Keep Groceries Affordable Act. The Lookout Editorial Board endorses a yes vote. We think it’s good for overall community health and for the city’s needy coffers.
Editor’s note: A Lookout View is the opinion of our Community Voices opinion section, written by our editorial board, which consists of Community Voices Editor Jody K. Biehl and Lookout Founder Ken Doctor. Our goal is to connect the dots we see in the news and offer a bigger-picture view — all intended to see Santa Cruz County meet the challenges of the day and to shine a light on issues we believe must be on the public agenda. These views are distinct and independent from the work of our newsroom and its reporting.
The city of Santa Cruz’s Measure Z is a straightforward, if unusual, measure. It would add 2 cents per ounce on the cost distributors pay for most sugar-sweetened beverages, adding about $1.3 million per year to the city’s general fund. Lookout has covered the nuances and details of the measure. (For a 12-ounce can of soda, the tax could add 24 cents. The wholesale cost of a 12-pack of soda could rise by $2.88. Distributors would pay the tax to the city and then local stores would decide how much – if any – to raise the price for consumers. We run through various potential pricing impacts from Coke to Capri-Sun to Starbucks here.)
NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES: Find Lookout’s local and state coverage here
The would-be tax has raised high emotion – and big money. The money is almost cartoonish in scale with, at last count, almost $850,000 donated to the “no” campaign, compared to $16,000 for the yes advocates. That money comes from some familiar names – the parent companies of Coke, Pepsi, Dr Pepper and Red Bull – and we don’t fault them for their self-serving advocacy and spending. We even appreciate the naked appropriation of the now-ubiquitous “affordability” cry of the American Beverage Association’s No on Z Campaign for an Affordable Santa Cruz.
Yet, trying to bigfoot little old Santa Cruz’ on the tax could backfire, a tiny health-conscious David against a sugar-highed Goliath.
We support Z and for two basic reasons.
No. 1, it adds more dollars to the city’s beleaguered general fund at a time when every dollar is needed to maintain city services. That should be a plus for all users and supporters of city services and the city workers who staff them. We’ll trust the city council to use this “general fund” increase as it sees fit, doing its annual balancing act. Our correspondents will be looking to see where it goes and how much goes to parks, youth fitness and other community health endeavors.
We get the point that by its nature it’s not a progressive tax, like income tax. Yet, local governments have few options to impose progressive taxes, so we all must make do with the art of the possible. Homeowners recently received the latest county property tax bills, and all the various parcel taxes do add up, but again, we need to do what’s possible to pay for vital local services.
Second, we do believe there’s enough evidence, in studies and reporting, that such a tax may reduce sugar consumption – and in so doing also reduce, inch by inch, all the bad health effects of the substance that is at the heart of so many health issues. Z opponents kind of want to have it both ways, saying it won’t have provable health effects and that in forcing a cutback – due to lower-income folks facing higher costs of buying sugar-laden drinks – it is unfair and regressive.
We would hope that, if passed, Z would cut back sugar consumption in Santa Cruz, as it has apparently done in other places (San Francisco, Oakland, Albany, Seattle, Philadelphia and Boulder, Colorado). We’re reminded of now generation-old arguments about various anti-smoking (including tax) measures – and how well they worked. Forget the “sin tax” label, and let’s focus on health, especially for younger populations.
Yes, the measure could face a lawsuit from the same monied players new to the advocacy of affordability. The no campaign insists taxing soda violates California’s Keep Groceries Affordable Act of 2018, which bans taxes on most food and drinks. The beverage companies were key players in getting that law passed – they lobbied hard for it. They have since used the threat of a lawsuit to discourage cities, including Santa Cruz, from pursuing soda taxes. Until now.
We agree with city leaders that this is an issue worth standing on and behind; if the city wins a legal fight, it could help set precedent in the state and allow other charter cities to adopt similar taxes. We hope that stand isn’t too pricey.