With 42 percent of precincts reporting, Measure J, which would have raised the utilities tax had just 32 percent approval. Measure K would have raised the real estate transfer tax. It had only 49.1 percent support. Measure L, which would have increased the Library Parcel Tax, got 47.5 percent positive votes. Measure M, which would have increased the existing Paramedic Services Parcel Tax, had 42.6 percent.

Measure K, L and M all needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

Berkeley’s 2005 budget, which the city council approved in June, makes broad cuts in order to close a projected deficit of between $7 and $10 million. Therefore, supporters of the revenue raising propositions J, K, L and M had said each measure was necessary to preserve programs and services that would be lost otherwise. But critics of the measures argued that the city needed to work harder at writing a balanced budget that both made vital services a priority and protected the Berkeley taxpayers.

“If these don’t pass, then they’ll have to go back and fix the budget,” said Marie Bowman, a member of Berkeleyans Against Soaring Taxes, or BASTA, a group formed in response to the ballot initiatives. “Or they can put more tax measures on the spring ballot. But for now they’ll have to do their homework. There are ways to make cuts that aren’t all that painful.”

The fiscal difficulties that prompted the mayor’s office and the city council to issue these initiatives are partly due to state-level cuts in local funding, but the skyrocketing cost of employee pensions is the greatest burden. Berkeleyans Against Soaring Taxes, the city manager, and council member Gordon Wozniak all said that the city should try to renegotiate contracts with city’s unions to find a long-term solution to its budget troubles.

Still, Wozniak said that realistically, the city had to call on taxpayers to help balance the books.

“I think we need some help from taxpayers, but I don’t think we need to ask them to fund the entire deficit,” said Wozniak.

In trying to sell the tax-increases, the mayor and many council members had pointed out that they were modest charges that would have cost the average homeowner only a few hundred dollars a year and the non-homeowner even less. In the case of the transfer tax increase, they argued it was just a one-time charge that would affect a small fraction of the citizens - those who buy or sell a house.

But David Wilson, a member of Berkeleyans Against Soaring Taxes, said yesterday that voters he had spoken to before the election were still recovering from the recession of 2001 and had little appetite for a round of tax increases.

“The vibe I got was that a number of people were receptive to our arguments,” he said. “People are hurting out there.”
Updated 11/3/02 12:06 AM