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?
The bank doesn't exist yet, and might never get approved. Why fund something that isn't real?
Answer
Getting a new bank chartered is a genuinely rigorous, multi-year process, and it should be. But this isn't a leap into the unknown: California law explicitly authorizes public banks, Public Bank East Bay has an independently vetted business plan and qualified board candidates already identified, and the campaign is in active conversations with regulators. The measure also includes a safeguard: if the bank isn't authorized to operate by the ordinance's deadline, every dollar raised must still go toward affordable housing, green infrastructure, and small businesses so it won’t go towards general city spending or be wasted.