Bottle tax comes up short; city to cut services
The City Council failed Thursday to approve a controversial new tax on bottled beverages, leaving the city to cut services to close a budget gap, Baltimore Sun colleague Julie Scharper reports.
The 15-member council split 7-7 on the measure backed by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake but opposed by a coalition of beverage of distributors and store owners. Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young, whose cousin is a lobbyist for a beverage distributor, recused himself.
Supporters of the new tariff had lobbied furiously this week to win the support of two remaining swing voters to achieve an 8-6 majority. Council member Warren Branch, who had said Wednesday that he was undecided, voted against it Thursday.
“My constituents told me overwhelmingly to vote no,” he said.
Councilman Carl Stokes, the other undecided member, voted for it Thursday.
Rawlings-Blake and the council have been negotiating the mix of budget cuts and new taxes to close a $121 million shortfall in the city’s budget, the largest deficit in memory.
Officials had estimated that the bottle tax would generate $11 million in revenue. But some council members disagreed with Rawlings-Blake’s plans for the revenue. Distributors and retailers, meanwhile, aired radio advertisements opposing the tax.








Comments
Another win for the lobbyist...hooray!
Instead of preserving necessary city jobs the corrupt City Council shot down a perfectly reasonable revenue source which might have actually discouraged people from drinking sugar filled beverages.
I am constantly amazed by the overt corruption present in Baltimore City government.
I for one will make it a point to not shop at the establishments which hired these lobbyist.
Posted by: Jill | June 17, 2010 7:17 PM
"Anouther win for lobbyist?"
Really?
People wouldn't pay the tax, you can take the bus to any number of stores in the county and shop there. This vote does exactly what you say it doesn't. It keeps jobs in the city. Who seriously would pay the tax when they could just take a bus or drive to a store in the county.
I lived in Baltimore City, all I had to do was take a bus 10 minutes and I was in the county. It's that simple. People would not have paid the tax and it would have hurt Baltimore more than it would have helped.
And I don't buy the sugar drink argument. There are lots of responsible people who don't give their kids nothing but soda. It's punishing the responsible.
Posted by: Greg | June 17, 2010 7:32 PM
To save 4 cents you would pay significantly more by driving/taking a bus to the county???? You might want to have someone else do your personal finances.
The point is that it is taxing an unhealthy vice similar to taxing cigarettes. This discourages a bad habit and benefits society. It is not ideal but it is better than the alternatives.
While you are chugging your soda consider the city residents (which you are not) who will have their trash picked up less frequently, more kids on the street due to Rec Center closures, vacants not being borded up, etc.
Posted by: Jill | June 17, 2010 7:57 PM
Greg
It's 4 cents per bottle. That's not a punishment. I drink maybe 500-600 bottled beverages a year. (I like beer!) That's $24 a year.
Having to get on the bus to go to the county to avoid paying 4 cents per bottle is punishment.
Posted by: matt | June 17, 2010 7:58 PM
Matt-
the true punishment is being a resident of this crime, ridden overtaxed dump of a city like myself.
Jill-
The cuts should be made to 121pencil pushers making 6 figures, like our deputy mayors for example.
Posted by: John | June 17, 2010 8:10 PM
There is an easy fix for the budget issue - all city employees should take an immediate pay cut of 10-15%, like all of the city residents in the private sector have had to do over the past 2 years. We should re-evaluate the performance of city employees, and if they are not performing their job to the level that their supervisors expect, they should be terminated. I am a city resident, I pay taxes, and I am demanding performance from this city's LAZY workforce.
Posted by: BIG RED | June 17, 2010 9:08 PM
I'd like to know how much money was spent by distributors and retailers to shoot this down. I'm sure most of you have heard the seemingly never ending radio advertisements opposing the tax. I heard them on multiple stations all throughout the day for months. Just curious how much that cost them.
Posted by: Jeff | June 17, 2010 9:32 PM
The people in office need to remember that it was tried before and look what happened.
The unionists will always make it seem like a jobs issue but that is a load of crap.
People are hired to jobs when you have money, and let go when you do not.
This is a fact of life.
I for one would like to see a container deposit instead enacted. This would beter everyone. People who wanted money could go out and collect those things that had a deposit and turn them in for cash.
TRANSLATION JOBS!!!!!
Also how about those free cars that elected people have.
Can I get one too!!!
WE could save alot on this one big time!!!
Posted by: Wil | June 18, 2010 6:28 AM
Compare the size of the city government and the services it provided in 1975 against the size of the city population then and now. Maybe by right-sizing the size of the city workforce, eliminating those useless employees and eliminating nepotism the city can better manage its finances.
Posted by: marc | June 18, 2010 7:05 AM
Maybe if the corrupt City Officials would give the city their bribes and payoffs. Baltimore City should levy a tax on every Drug Dealer and Murderer in the City, which would surely pay the deficit. Taxing a Legal Beverage that "responsible" people enjoy is not going to succeed. I should be able to eat and drink what I want and be treated unfairly. The stupid irresponsible people that misuse and abuse products should he held accountable for their actions. Example, fast food restaurants are not the reason for "fat kids"; parents are responsible for "fat kids". Hold the parents responsible not the fast food places and those that eat responsibly.
Posted by: JoeB | June 18, 2010 8:00 AM
Jeff,
I am sure a lot of money was spent on the ads. I listen to Jack FM (102.7) on my morning and evening commute. They played it at EVERY commercial break, or at least it seemed that way.
Posted by: chris | June 18, 2010 8:33 AM
The jobs being cut are NOT necessary jobs. The are the employment padding left over from a city government that needed to care for a much larger population. How many people does it take to bulldoze blocks of vacant rowhomes? Contract the work out since it is a temporary job. It's not like anybody is going to be moving into the city anytime soon.!
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2010 6:38 AM
This is nothing more than a regressive hidden tax. Liberals should be ashamed for themselves for supporting this bill.
Posted by: Direwolfc | June 25, 2010 9:22 AM
I would like to thank the city of Baltimore for making my shopping list easier. I already purchase my clothes in DEL, my tobacco products in VA, now I can add beverages to my list. After I factor in gas / tolls..... by bi-monthly trips save me $147.00. That is $882.00 per year. I also feel good that I support states who care and have respect for its residents.
Posted by: stephen mack | August 15, 2010 12:31 PM