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?
Won't this just let politicians play politics with our money?
Answer
The board overseeing the bank includes financial experts and community members alongside elected officials. And every board meeting, annual report, and major decision is open to public review. That's more transparency and accountability than Berkeley's money gets today, sitting inside a private bank where residents have no seat at the table at all.