Berkeley already has a $30 million budget deficit. Why add a new tax now?
Why should Berkeley pay for a bank that also lends money to Oakland, Richmond, and other cities?
This tax increases every year automatically. How is that fair to taxpayers?
The bank doesn't exist yet, and might never get approved. Why fund something that isn't real?
Don't programs like IBank, the SBA, and municipal bonds already do this?
Isn't a public bank too risky? The only real example is North Dakota, and Berkeley isn't North Dakota.
If Berkeley can't manage its own budget, why should we trust it to run a bank?
Won't this just let politicians play politics with our money?
Don't programs like IBank, the SBA, and municipal bonds already do this?
Answer
Those programs matter, but they work differently. IBank lends once from a fixed pool of state capital. SBA loans still require a private bank willing to originate and hold them. The SBA guarantees the loan, it doesn't replace the private lender's decision. Municipal bonds fund a single project and don't recycle; once spent, that money doesn't come back to lend again. A public bank is different: it holds deposits directly and re-lends that same base of capital again and again, filling gaps for borrowers — like community land trusts, employee-owned businesses, and small and mid-sized local companies — that existing programs often can't reach.