Richmond’s arch libertarian, Felix Hunziker asked me today to copy his Richmond Confidential op-ed opposing the soda tax on the E-FORUM. He also asked me to do it “without commentary” as I have done with pro-soda tax pieces written by Jeff Ritterman.

While the footer on my E-FORUM states, “comments, corrections and arguments are welcome,” it doesn’t say that the E-FORUM is always unbiased. It’s still my E-FORUM.

So, I am taking up Felix’ challenge by copying his op-ed below, along with a piece by another local organization, BAPAC, but I will also editorialize on it.

The debate over the soda tax reminds me a lot of the debate over Point Molate. Opinions about the future of Point Molate were both passionate and clearly divided in Richmond, with each side claiming they were right and represented the majority. I wrote the agenda item that successfully placed the Point Molate measure on the ballot and that earned me the emnity of the same organizations that now oppose the soda tax, namely the Chamber of Commerce and BAPAC. But I thought finding out what the majority actually thought about Point Molate was valuable information the City Council should have – and ultimately it did.

I voted to put the soda tax on the ballot for similar but not identical reasons. Unlike Point Molate, the final decision on the soda tax will be that of the people rather than the City Council. The City Council no longer has a dog in the soda tax fight.

Like Point Molate, however, a lot of money will be poured into the fight by outside interests that could care less about the health of Richmond residents, the effects on poor peoples’ ability to purchase their soda ration at a low tax, the cash flow of mom and pop markets, whether the revenue will go to recreation and exercise programs or whether or not a better law could be crafted at some other level of government. The soda industry will, of course, use all these arguments in their campaign, but really all they care about is selling soda and making sure Richmond does not trigger a national trend .

I have copied a number of pro-soda tax pieces on the E-FORUM because I agree with them. I am not alone.

• The UN just issued a report on food and nutrition which calls for a tax on Sugar Sweetened Beverages and other foods high in sugars and fats. 
• The American Medical Association and the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) have both now come out in support of the Soda Tax.
• This type of tax has been recommended by the American Heart Association, The United Nations, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control.  Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the CDC said that the one cent per ounce Sugar Sweetened Beverage tax could be "the single most effective measure to reverse the obesity epidemic."

 

I know there are smart people in Richmond who believe the soda tax is a bad idea, and because of my City Council vote, they will have a chance to vote on it themselves. I assume a lot of people will vote against it. But I hope it passes.

There are those who believe the soda tax will be a wedge issue in the campaign, making it a racial issue that will help some candidates and hurt others. I just don’t see it. The City Council is out of the picture, and it is up to the people. The ultimate democracy.
The big money machine has already landed in Richmond and is cranking up its campaign, targeting one of the ethnic communities that is most impacted by childhood obesity:
A powerful Washington, D.C., trade organization that represents PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and other major beverage companies is helping fund a Richmond group that is fighting a November ballot measure to raise taxes on soda and other sweetened beverages, interviews and records show.

A Richmond resident, Rosa Lara, is going door to door identifying herself as an organizer with the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes and collecting signatures on a petition. Although Lara doesn't mention it unless specifically asked, her group is supported by the American Beverage Association, the industry's main trade organization.

In May, Lara presented the Richmond City Council with a petition that she said included 900 signatures against the sweetened-beverage tax. Holding up a pile of papers, she also told the council that 100 businesses had signed up to oppose the measure.

“We only have one grocery store. What’s going to happen to us? We’re going to have to walk,” Lara told the council. “We don’t have the resources to go out of the city. I’ve lived here my whole life – I haven’t seen changes. We need to make a change for the community. This isn’t the way.”

Lara, who also presented her case to the council in Spanish, said she represented the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, but did not note the beverage association was helping fund her petition drive.

The American Beverage Association opposes the Richmond proposal and has hired a consulting firm to help organize an anti-tax campaign. "We are confident that as voters become aware of who is going to pay this tax and where the money is going to go, they are going to vote no," said Chuck Finnie, a spokesman for the group. "Not a single penny will go to anti-obesity programs, but the proponents are misrepresenting it to say it will…It goes to the general fund, and will help close the deficit."

Retailers and restaurants also strongly oppose the tax, said Chamber of Commerce CEO Judy Morgan. "We have a lot of small businesses, family-owned businesses who are going to be hit hard," she said.

So, just so someone doesn’t miss the arguments of Richmond’s local soda tax detractors, here they are. I believe they are at least partially inaccurate and draw lots of unsupported conclusions, but you will hear them over and over again until November. Notice that they don’t cite any credible authorities on public health, which in the end, what it is all about. Maybe they can track down that tobacco ad doctor, La Donna Porter to help them out.

Op-Ed: Soda tax promises bitter outcome for residents and businesses

By: Felix Hunziker | July 6, 2012 – 3:38 pm
Richmond’s regressive and indiscriminate sugar tax promises a bitter outcome for our most underserved residents and struggling businesses.
The proposed tax is extraordinarily broad, impacting much more than the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) sweetened sodas suspected of causing much of the nation’s obesity. It taxes any non-alcoholic beverage containing any added caloric sweetener including fructose, sucrose, and fruit juice concentrates. This means many alternatives to soda — juice-sweetened sodas, soy milk, almond milk, fruit juice blends, veggie-drinks, ethnic drinks (aguas frescas, Thai iced tea, tapioca pearl drinks, etc) and even baby formula – are all taxed. The tax is blind to quantity — if even a small amount of sweetener is added the entire beverage is taxed $.01 per ounce.
Many of these alternatives are moderately consumed, healthy grocery items; taxing of staples will become even more pronounced when Richmond businesses, as they’ve forewarned, must distribute the cost across all merchandise in order to remain competitive with stores outside our city. Raising the cost of staples through taxation, in a city with nearly double the national and state poverty rate, places an unacceptable burden on our poor.
This effect on our poorest residents is further compounded because our wealthier residents already shop outside Richmond. Supermarkets generally popular with our lower middle-class and up — Safeway, Raley’s, Lucky’s, Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Berkeley Bowl, etc. – are all located in neighboring cities. This leaves our poor, with limited means and mobility, to pay the tax at Richmond’s corner stores while the wealthier residents can reap any benefits — without the burden — the tax may bring. This tax is hyper-regressive.
Richmond has many vacant storefronts, a shortage of grocers, and leading supermarkets either refuse to locate here or have left town. Passing a tax making it even costlier to do business assures the shunning of Richmond will continue, while avoidance of the tax will remain the privilege of our wealthier, mobile residents.
Few disagree that the consumption of HFCS sodas is unhealthy and must be reduced, particularly here in Richmond. The proposed sugar tax includes a noteworthy albeit non-mandatory measure tying revenue to as-yet unspecified anti-obesity programs. But in a time of punishing, pension-driven deficits in a city struggling with violent crime, it remains to be seen if revenues won’t be diverted to more immediate concerns such as public safety.
In the absence of a state or national soda tax, a local parcel tax dedicated to health initiatives could be one progressive option that avoids impeding business growth and ensures the wealthy pay their fair share. But as proposed, this municipal tax on sugar will be harmful to a city with such socio-economic disparity and focusing a tax on Richmond’s poor can never be the solution.
See this link for examples of taxed, non-soda beverages: http://tinyurl.com/7wuk8xt
Felix Hunziker, Richmond, California
Connect with Richmond Confidential on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

 

Soda Tax Will Punish The Poor  

On Tuesday May 15, the Richmond City Council voted 5-2 to place a Soda Tax Measure on the November 6 ballot. Councilmen Nat Bates and Corky Booze cast the two dissenting votes. The soda tax if passed would add a one cent per ounce surcharge to sugar-sweetened beverages sold by businesses within the city limits. For example, sale of a 2-liter bottle of soda would incur a new tax of about 67 cents. It has been reported that no data exist for Richmond residents' soda drinking habits and the national trend is down. The average American drinks fewer than two sodas per day, a drop of about 16 percent since 1998, according to the Beverage Digest, a trade publication.

We all agree with the First Lady, Michelle Obama,
eating healthy and active living can prevent childhood obesity. There are a number of things we can do as responsible parents, teachers, and healthcare providers at home, in our schools, parks and community centers. For example:

*    Prepare and serve healthier meals at home and at schools
*    Encourage children to drink more water and fewer sodas
*    Walk and exercise with your children
*    Enroll them in team sports offered at school, parks and community centers
*    Teach them nutrition
*    Provide obesity and diabetes prevention education
*    Limit the amount sugar intake
*    Make our parks safe so our children can play outside.

What is their real motivation for supporting the Soda Tax?

If you recall last June Richmond became the first city in Contra Costa County to approve municipal identification cards. Richmond also became the first city in California to endorse a statewide millionaire's tax ballot measure.

If the Soda Tax passes in November some of the consequences reported in the Contra Costa Times and in a Richmond Chamber of Commerce May 15 letter to the Richmond City Council included:

*    It is not likely to cause many residents to stop drinking sodas
*    May cause people to buy in bulk in neighboring cities
*    Businesses argue that the tax will put them at a disadvantage against competitors in nearby cities
*    The tax won't reduce consumption, will fall disproportionately on the working poor and dissuade prospective investors from opening restaurants and grocery stores in the city

BAPAC will urge the community to Vote No on the Soda Tax Ballot Measure on November 6, 2012.

Lloyd G. Madden, President