The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is pushing a new tax on sweetened beverages like soda, teas, fruit drinks and sports drinks. The tax would affect hundreds of beverages sold in local grocery stores and restaurants. Proposition E would require retailers and distributors to pay 2 cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages sold in San Francisco. This would increase the cost of a bottle of soda by 40 cents and increase the cost of a 12-pack by almost three dollars.
The tax is unfair to consumers and working families. It is unfair for the city to ask for millions of dollars more in taxes from families through a sugar-sweetened beverage tax while at the same time giving away hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to tech companies and wealthy developers.
During a public hearing over the summer, supervisors supporting the measure insisted that grocers and restaurant owners and consumers wouldn’t be responsible for paying the tax. They claim the burden would fall only on distributors. They tried to convince local business owners and consumers that the proposed tax would not create any hardships.
At the same time, they admitted that their goal was to increase the price of the products they want to tax to discourage its use. They can’t have it both ways.
The city has higher priorities than taxing grocery items. The reality is that this is a regressive tax that will get passed along in higher prices on sugary drinks and lots of other products, and those higher prices will create a burden on consumers and all San Franciscans. This city is one of the most unaffordable cities in the United States. The cost of living is tremendously high. San Franciscans pay high property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, school district taxes and city taxes; the last thing they need is to pay even more for groceries or meals at local restaurants.
The supervisors justify the beverage tax by saying it will discourage people from consuming soft drinks, thereby making them healthier. But if the tax is spread across many grocery items, as it will be, then the argument that the tax will discourage people from drinking soda falls flat. Enough is enough. Instead of regulating food and beverage choices and introducing another tax, supervisors should make better use of the money they already have. They should focus on public safety, homelessness, education, keeping the streets and parks clean, and addressing the housing affordability gap.
Latino entrepreneurship in San Francisco is growing, but this tax will stifle it. It will make it even harder for businesses to thrive by increasing costs associated with being able to provide sugar-sweetened beverages in their stores. The Latino local business community, which is mostly small and family run, is already functioning under dire conditions, and is struggling to keep afloat in this competitive and expensive city.
A sugar-sweetened beverage tax hurts consumers and businesses. It is time city leaders start dealing with real matters of concern like homelessness and affordable housing, and not regulating what people consume. Latinos should stand united in opposing the beverage tax because the last thing the community needs is a new law that makes it even more costly to live and work in San Francisco.
Roberto Sanchez is the owner of Playa Azul Seafood Restaurant and Bar, and El Taco Loco Taqueria.