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?
Why should Berkeley pay for a bank that also lends money to Oakland, Richmond, and other cities?
Answer
Berkeley isn't just paying into this bank; Berkeley is becoming an owner of it. A bank makes money by making loans, and the amount it can safely lend is tied directly to the size and diversity of its capital base. A larger, regionally diversified loan portfolio is lower-risk and more profitable than one that only lends in a single city. As an owner, Berkeley shares proportionally in that profit and stability. The long-term goal remains a fully regional bank, co-capitalized by Oakland, Richmond, Alameda County, and other jurisdictions, which would reduce the share Berkeley carries over time.