S.F. soda tax falls short; Berkeley’s surges to victory

Proposition E campaign manager Todd David watches voting results at Valley Tavern on 24th Street in San Francisco, Calif., on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. Proposition E campaign manager Todd David watches voting results at Valley Tavern on 24th Street in San Francisco, Calif., on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. Photo: Scott Strazzante, The Chronicle Buy photo Photo: Scott Strazzante, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 68 Caption Close S.F. soda tax falls short; Berkeley’s surges to victory 1 / 68 Back to Gallery

San Francisco voters rejected a tax on soda and other sugary beverages Tuesday, but voters in Berkeley approved their own version, making the famously liberal bastion the first city in the country to adopt a controversial soda tax.

Proponents of both measures said sugar is fueling a worldwide obesity epidemic and contributing to a host of diseases, including diabetes, and that a tax on soda would make people think twice about drinking so much of it.

Opponents, including the deep-pocketed American Beverage Association, argued that the tax smacked of a “nanny state,” would hit low-income residents hardest because they drink the most soda, and would probably raise the cost of groceries for everybody.

Opponents of both measures gathered at a San Francisco bar to celebrate their win in the city while brushing off Berkeley voters’ adoption of a soda tax. Confetti burst in the air, and the Queen song “We Are the Champions” blared.

“San Franciscans have made it clear they can decide for themselves what to eat and drink,” said Roger Salazar, spokesman for the campaigns to defeat both taxes. “Despite being considered an extremely liberal city, voters in San Francisco share many of the same economic concerns as the rest of the American public.”

Martin Bourque, spokesman for the Berkeley soda tax measure, said of the landslide passage there: “What this shows is that a community can come together and fight for kids’ health regardless of the outrageous amounts of money spent against their interests. The tides have clearly turned on Big Soda.”

San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener, an author of Prop. E., said he was disappointed by the results in the city but was “very, very happy for Berkeley.”

The cities’ measures were crafted differently. San Francisco’s Proposition E would have levied a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on sodas and other sugar-sweetened drinks, including some juices, coffees and flavored waters.

The city’s economist said the tax would raise the price of soda by 23 to 36 percent and bring in $35 million to $54 million annually. The money would have gone to children’s nutrition and physical education programs. Because the tax revenues were pegged for a specific use, the measure needed two-thirds of voters to approve it.

Berkeley’s Measure D will levy a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sodas and sugary drinks, and the money will go to the city’s general fund. Because the tax revenues weren’t intended for a specific purpose, the measure needed just a simple majority of voters to approve it.

The American Beverage Association fought hard against the San Francisco measure, spending nearly $10million on TV and radio advertising, billboards, campaign mailers, polls, political consultants and more. It also gave money to local political clubs, including the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club and the San Francisco Republican Party, to produce slate card mailers listing their endorsements, including No on E.

It spent just a fraction of that in Berkeley, saying that city’s smaller media market didn’t warrant as much spending.

The campaigns to pass both measures raised much smaller amounts, largely from individual donors and medical groups.

About 30 states and cities — including Richmond in the East Bay — have tried to pass soda taxes, but each one has failed until Berkeley bucked the trend Tuesday.

Before the election, Salazar dismissed the notion that the likely passage of the measure in Berkeley could create a domino effect in which other cities adopt soda taxes too.

“San Francisco is always where the big action is,” he said. “Berkeley is always an outlier. It’s a lot more affluent. It’s a lot more eclectic.

“I don’t think people would look at Berkeley’s results and say, 'Oh, that’s what the rest of the country would do,’” he continued. “Berkeley is a city that gives away free pot to poor people. It’s not exactly mainstream.”

(The Berkeley City Council approved an ordinance in July requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to give away at least 2 percent of their product to very-low-income residents.)

The industry also tied the tax to an increasing cost of living in the Bay Area. It warned that grocery bills would rise overall, not just on Coke and Pepsi, because the taxes would be levied on grocery stores, which could raise overall prices to pay the tax.

Proponents of soda taxes pointed to the great success of cigarette taxes in reducing the number of people who smoke.

Claire Brindis, director of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF, has said soda taxes are “a gentle way to try to help people begin to make wise choices in their environment.”

Chronicle staff writer Wendy Lee contributed to this report.

Heather Knight is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: hknight@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @hknightsf