News

Pools majority falls short: Closures expected

June 9, 2010 4:29 am by Lance Knobel

Measure C, the ballot proposition that would have funded rehabilitation of Berkeley’s four pools, won just over 60% of the vote, falling short of the required two-thirds.

Robert Collier, co-chair of the Berkeley Pools Campaign, said in an email exchange shortly after the votes were counted last night, “Measure C lost only because of the Prop. 13 two-thirds requirement for new taxes.” He continued:

In any other system but California’s, we would have won a landslide victory. We had a great response from a broad swath of Berkeley, from the hills to the flats, from Shirley Dean to Tom Bates to Kriss Worthington, and more grassroots participation than any campaign in recent Berkeley memory. But as in the state legislature, the Prop. 13 legacy gives the conservative minority the ability to block the needed revenue measures to save our state and our communities from crisis and collapse.

Collier also said the failure of Measure C raised a larger question for him:

The importance of Measure C stretches far beyond the pools. The latest news from Congress indicates it is unwilling to give enough federal aid to rescue states and municipalities from their fiscal crisis. So a wave of fiscal dominoes will hit American cities with a catastrophic series of budget cuts that affect schools, parks, and other needed services. Measure C is an initial indication of how communities will react — will we do what is necessary to save those services? Or will we allow everything to crumble and decay?

One immediate consequence of the lack of a two-thirds majority on the measure will be the closure of the Willard Pool on July 1. The warm pool at Berkeley High will close next year when BHS demolishes the building to make room for more classrooms.

The final tally according to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters was 10,421 votes for Measure C (60.38%) and 6,837 votes opposed (39.62%).

56 Comments

Print Friendly
Tagged ,
← Older Comments
  • JNG

    GR: I agree completely. I’m particularly insulted that they make it out that you’re a N*zi if you don’t think its good for “kids” – well, I have kids and they would never be swimming in a 92 degree pool. If they want to spend money wisely, why not upgrade/expand the tiny dirty beach at Tilden, which is used by 100s of people on warm days, particularly families.

  • Maureen Burke

    Measure R of 2000 was a senseless bond measure and shame on the city for backing it. The pols really did do a disservice to the disabled community on this one. It did pass, but the City of Berkeley did not own the property on which the proposed warm pool was to be either renovated or built. What other municipality has ever promoted a bond measure to build something on property it did not own?

    Measure AA, a BUSD bond measure, passed also in 2000 and it called for building classrooms at the warm pool site also known as the perpetually crowded Berkeley High School. City personnel should be ashamed, that’s for sure, for ever trying to float a bond measure to build a warm pool on property it didn’t own. The Berkeley High campus needs to be dedicated to the students and teachers of Berkeley High; they have no other place to go and I guess (since the warm pool proponents still refuse to tell us how many Berkeley disabled residents use the warm pool) there are more students and teachers who need that space (close to 4,000) than warm pool users.

    Michelle Lawrence, the former BUSD superintendent, also failed to fix this thorny issue. She let it slide because she lacked a backbone to deal with the warm pool users. She said the warm pool wasn’t going to be demolished after all, a few years after we voted for Measure AA to build classrooms, because “the community no longer desired classrooms.” Hah! I”d love to know what her severance package was–I bet it included forgiveness of the interest-free loan she got to buy a Berkeley house when she was hired.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Two aspects of the history of measure C that are perhaps worth noting:

    The Berkeley Citywide Pools Masterplan remarks, under the heading “Project Criterea” (page 6):


    A majority of the options should not exceed a
    capital funding target of $25 million. This was
    based upon a staff assessment of the voter
    threshold for bond approval based upon voter
    surveys conducted in the spring of 2008.

    Hmm. So, in some sense, the budget Measure C asked for was determined back then.

    What were these surveys? The Masterplan answers (pages 1-2):


    Two surveys of likely voters were conducted in 2008. Results indicated that there was not sufficient voter support for passage of a pools bond measure. Based upon these results, and further consideration by the City Council, a funding measure for a new warm water pool and renovated neighborhood pools was not placed on the November 2008 ballot. Instead, in July 2008, understanding the value of aquatics programs to the community, the City Council passed a resolution to develop a Citywide Pools Master Plan to address the warm water pool, the community pools, and possible new pools. The
    City Council directed the City Manager to work directly with the BUSD Superintendent to engage community stakeholders in this process. The School Board passed a similar resolution.

    The earlier measure, for which it was decided there was not sufficient support, was (per the Masterplan’s account) to repair King, Willard, and West and build a new warm pool. It clocked in at at a startling $23 million. (Remember, that for measure C’s $22.5M we were to have renovation of surviving pools, the construction of a new warm pool, and the construction of an additional pool.)

    In other words, having concluded that a suprisingly high $23M measure to preserve service wouldn’t pass, the City posed the question “Let’s suppose we make it up to $25M and toss in service enhancements, how about that?” Thus, the Masterplan was chartered.

    Examining the Masterplan, I’d call attention to the table of capital costs for “Alternative [plan] A” on page 38. In this alternative, Willard and West would be repaired, the warm pool replaced, and a new pool constructed at King.

    That plan clocked in at about $17.8 million. Of that, $4.8 million was for the new pool at King.

    It begins to look as though we could have had a capital plan for preserving existing service – including construction of a replacement warm pool – for around $13M (per Taskforce calculations). If assume it would include, say, $2M more for repairs to King (although the report does not cite any need for these, that I could find), $15M. If you think that perhaps some of even those costs are inflated, maybe we could have had an option for continued service, with a brand new warm pool, for closer to $11 million.

    Of course, an $11M ask would have been less than half of the $25M target and $13M barely more than half. Either way, it’s in the neighborhood of $10M less than the measure we got.

  • Get Realz

    Fascinating and interesting read on the masterplan.
    People assume that this Measure C bond was for the pools only. Offshoring a parcel tax for pools may have protected at least 3.5 million a year in pool funds(inflation adjusted max that could go to pools) but the mirror amount in the general fund could go anywhere. This is why it’s called a Trojan horse-or accounting scheme.
    The cost stated above is for pool renovations and warm pool construction. Mileage may vary.
    The staggering 22 mill construction bond-ensuing 20 million 30 years in interest(at least) and parcel tax of max 3.5 million(1 mill a year to 3.5) to pools(but not maximum take in from the tax) was most predictably a runaround of Prop 13 and would be raided to pay for obligations and salaries(80% of budget.)
    The fact that Bates and the Council found religion in family recreation(they didn’t give a rats ass about Iceland) makes me suspicious that they were going to use this tax to cook the books.
    They already cook the books, play the margin with bonds and pension money(and could lose a lot of it at the casinos) and pretty market a mirage of family fun to cover their hineys and bad spending habits.
    I also suspect that Measure C was a reconnaissance probe into next election cycle’s whopper-the School Bond. They have learned a lot about the resistance and counter arguments to bonds and taxes, and could have used a minor issue like pools as a test sacrificial lamb for the larger bond.
    That bond stands to make huge profits for bondholders(provided Berkeley doesn’t default eventually). Look for a huge marketing windup on that measure. You could see the Pro-C forces (post election)already talking about the schools and using key words like, destruction, ruin to begin prepping the voter for a big war to get more money.

  • Lori Kossowsky

    This should be my last comment. The city council and the school board made a decision to form a city pools task force,funded by the warm pool reserve money to recommend a Berkeley pool configuration for a bond measure and measure C is what they came up with. As far as your statistics, these would be closer to the truth: at least a 150 people use the warm pool on a drop in basis during open hours. Another 200 use it from time to time. This does not include rentals such as the SNAP program, tot program, boot camp, and such evenings as family swim, and teaching programs. The pool is only open limited hours–18 to be exact, so you the math.

  • Pingback: Last-gasp bid to save Willard pool eyes city subsidies – Berkeleyside

← Older Comments