Monday, December 20th 2004
Right Wing Berkeley
An article in today’s SF Chronicle analyzing the defeat of Berkleley’s tax increase measures in the recent election.
After years of voting for various tax measures that have made Berkeley’s property taxes the highest in the state, voters are now saying: enough already.
On Nov. 2, four tax measures designed to fund basic services such as fire and police, youth programs, medical services and libraries — yes, libraries — failed to get the two-thirds vote they needed to pass.
I’m happy to say I did my part in defeating those measures.
As someone who has lived for much of his adult life in Berkeley — and willingly paid extra property taxes so Berkeley could remain one of the world’s most livable and innovative communities — even I couldn’t bring myself to vote for all the latest tax measures this time around.
I was incensed to see President Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger make cutting taxes the centerpiece of their respective campaigns — and winning. I realized that voters in Berkeley (and San Francisco, and other similar communities who are not against taxes on ideological grounds) have in effect been enabling Bush and Schwarzenegger to continue on their anti-tax crusades. By continually voting to impose higher taxes on ourselves to keep essential services going, we have made it easier for them to carry on as if the taxes they’re cutting weren’t needed in the first place.
Berkeley… livable??? Without fast food chains or mega shopping centers, life is almost not worth living. Thankfully, I’ll be back in good old SoCal this Christmas break and be able to live again.
People don’t like taxes and they vote for politicians who don’t like taxes… quite a shocker. Hopefully, we’ll see this translate into spending cuts and privatization of more services. That would really incense this writer.
“Berkeley… livable??? Without fast food chains or mega shopping centers, life is almost not worth living.”
What a sorry life you must live.
Comment by Donald — 12/20/2004 @ 7:58 pm
Obviously I was exaggerating, but those are nice things to have. I wonder what the author was referring to then. Because I really can’t see what makes Berkeley so livable compared to other cities. Could it be the crowded & confusing streets; the bums sleeping outside your apartment; the gloomy weather; the overpriced everything… I could go on, but maybe some of other readers can share what they like about Berkeley.
Comment by patr — 12/20/2004 @ 9:11 pm
The author is full of shit. Berkeley is no better than in terms of “livability” than most other places, at least in terms of the word’s analytical meaning. He’s just some arrogant elitist asshole who (I’m assuming) is trying to perpetuate some idealist view of “progressive” Berkeley. I don’t think my assumption’s too far off, though, considering the perspective of the piece; Freedberg spends his time trying to argue that Berkeley and the Bay Area are still the nation’s “progressive” leaders.
Arguments about fast food and chain stores shouldn’t play too much a part of this discussion since it’s highly personal. Normative preference will decide what’s “livable”, in the superficial sense, for each person differently.
What I think the failure of the measures signifies is that most people in the city have some degree of common sense. Not every spending proposal is a good idea. “Progressivism” aside, some things are just not worth their cost.
Comment by Hov — 12/21/2004 @ 12:50 am