Our regular readers will know that this blog is as much about
land use, specifically, as it is about local government powers,
generally, and the direct and indirect impacts on land use.
Voters in two California cities -- San Francisco and Berkeley -- will go to the polls next month to consider a
city tax on soft drinks. Specifically, San Francisco voters will
consider a "more aggressive" $.02 tax per ounce, with the
tax proceeds going to the City and channeling into health and
wellness programs. Berkeley voters will consider a
"taker" $.01 tax per ounce, with the taxes going into the
City's general fund. Such voter measures have not had much
success in the U.S., with a measure recent failing in Telluride, Colorado,
for example. We don't know of successful or unsuccessful
legal challenges.
These taxes are interesting to us insofar as it represents another
means by which a local government could endeavor to control land
uses, though with a different power. For example, we've
seen in the past the efforts by local governments in North
Carolina to control the existence or location of the promotional
sweepstakes industry within municipal borders through the use of
the privilege license tax powers. Could this paradigm we're
seeing in California replace the
since-repealed privilege license taxing power?
We have not reviewed whether such ballot measures would be legal in
North Carolina, but it is worth noting that one of the players in
the polling used to support California tax measure is our own
flagship University in Chapel Hill, as reported by The New York
Times.
"If we tax this an additional $.02, that would double its cost of production."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.