Soda taxes work; vote Yes on SC Measure Z

Readers should not be mislead by the egregious misstep of the Sentinel Editorial Board in their opposition to Measure Z.

Obesity and Type 2 diabetes are known to disproportionately impact communities of color and lower income due to the targeted marketing of Big Soda.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the real regressive impact is in the targeted sales of sugar-sweetened beverages.

The intent of the Santa Cruz soda tax on the large distributors is to help reverse decades of predatory behavior of the soda and sugary drinks industries on Black and LatinX communities, in particular.

You only need look at the supporters of Yes on Z (and funders of the No on Z campaign) to see that Big Soda is trying to buy your no votes to keep targeting those at highest risk for obesity and diabetes for their own profits.

Soda taxes work. I urge Santa Cruz voters to vote Yes on Z.

— Catherine Sonquist Forest, MD, UCSF Natividad Family Medicine

Soda tax will hurt small businesses and customers

Despite what the Santa Cruz City Council claimed when it proposed a beverage tax for the November ballot, the increased costs on these items will hurt small businesses like mine.

I run a convenience store in Santa Cruz where many of my customers come for their daily shopping, including drinks. If this tax passes, my customers (who are already struggling with high living costs) might stop shopping with me. They could easily go to big-box stores that can absorb the financial hit or go to stores outside the city to avoid the tax.

All this tax does is hurt the Santa Cruz economy.

Sorting out which items are taxed, changing prices, and keeping up with the new rules is a lot for a small business to handle. This extra work and cost make it even tougher for small stores and restaurants to survive. The reality is that we may have to increase prices on lots of things besides beverages to stay afloat. I hope voters give this tax the thumbs down.

— Palminder Kambow, Santa Cruz

Measure Z a regressive tax that will fall on the poor

After recently raising sales taxes and fees to the highest in history, the city is again coming for more of your money. Measure Z’s proponents are City Council members looking to once again stuff the city’s pockets following the classic tax ‘em playbook ballot question tactic of starting with an overloaded list of feel-good city service shiny objects followed by a new twist promising un-correlatable health benefits.

At its core this is just a coercive regressive general tax increase, mostly falling on the poor, of two cents per ounce additional cost levied on sugar sweetened beverages, for example $1.44 per six-pack of soda.

They cannot promise what the money will be spent on, using only suggestive flowery “such as” purposes, nor really assure any net health benefit. The only sure thing is this government would love to control every aspect of your life with less freedom at your wallet’s expense if you continue to let them.

— Garrett Philipp, Santa Cruz

Soda tax should be countywide, or statewide

While acknowledging that sugary drinks are, from a health perspective, problematic, I think people who support the proposed tax on sugary drinks should decide what side they’re on.

Half of the people supporting the proposed tax are doing so with the hope that it will reduce our consumption of these drinks, while the other half have already anticipated the annual revenue from the proposed tax and are trying to decide how to spend it.

While I admittedly gave up rocket science a few years ago, I think half the people are supporting a proposition they hope will eliminate something the other wants us to keep using.

While recognizing the need to have a big tent when trying to pass a new tax, let’s not ignore the regressive nature of such a tax, and that it will most likely place businesses in this city on an economic island.

While I would support a sugary drink tax on either a countywide or statewide basis, I don’t believe this one is well thought out.

— Owen Hendricks, Santa Cruz