Poll shows too little support for climate resiliency tax measure; Sonoma County pols go back to the drawing board

Members of the Regional Climate Protection Authority are going back to the drawing board to determine how best to fund carbon reduction and climate mitigation after a recent poll showed insufficient support for a tax measure they had hoped to put on the ballot next year.

More than half of the 800 people polled supported either a quarter-cent sales tax or a $52-a-year parcel tax to generate money to address the local impacts of climate change, expand renewable energy use and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

But support for a new tax came in at just over 50% in each case — nowhere near the two-thirds vote needed to pass a new tax — despite strong concerns among respondents about some of the issues, like drought and wildfires, that would be addressed.

“There appears to be a disconnect between caring about these issues and willingness to support a new tax measure to address them,” Jessica Polsky-Sanchez, a principal with EMC Research, told authority representatives in presenting the poll her firm conducted.

Members of the regional agency, all of them local city council members or county supervisors, were profoundly discouraged by results of the week-long poll, though they were aware a robust campaign would be needed to assure passage in any case.

“It was really disappointing,” Sonoma County Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, vice chair of the 12-member board, said in an interview. “I think that we all hoped it would be closer. I didn’t expect us to be at two-thirds, but I think we all hoped it would be closer.”

Officials still found enough concerns about climate impacts in the poll to explore other potential revenue paths, including a citizen-led initiative or collaborating with other local agencies looking to pass or renew taxes in the near future.

At least two-thirds of respondents rated components of the proposed climate tax at 5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale, where 7 is “extremely important” and 1 is “not at all important.”

Those components included ensured water supply; protection of wildlife, forests, nature areas and agriculture; prevention and reduction of impacts of drought, wildfire, floods and heat waves; and increased energy efficiency and renewable energy in homes and buildings.

They also say help is needed to hasten progress toward the county’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2030, which is dependent on increased investment in all-electric buildings, increased carbon sequestration and a more resilient energy grid, among other things.

“We’ve set goals consistent with what science says we need to achieve,” Santa Rosa Councilman Chris Rogers, chairman of the climate authority, said in an interview.

A citizen-led initiative, perhaps developed in partnership with a nonprofit organization, could be approved by 50% of the vote plus one.

“I think that more than 50% of the voters in Sonoma County know we need to take action on climate change, and we need to do it yesterday,” Cloverdale City Councilwoman Melanie Bagby said during the climate protection authority’s July 10 meeting, where the poll results were made public.

Results of the polling were somewhat mixed, however, and reflected issues and policy discussions of the moment, with 78% of respondents saying homelessness was a “very serious problem” and 64% citing lack of affordable housing.

By comparison, just 56% called climate change “a very serious problem,” though wildfires, generally believed to be of increasing severity, size and frequency as part of the climate crisis, were cited by 68%.

RCPAPollingResults.pdf

Several members of the climate authority board wondered how the poll’s results might have differed if conducted a few weeks later, during successive days of record-setting heat around the country.

“Climate change,” said Suzanne Smith, executive director of the climate authority, “is a slow-rolling disaster, except for all those times when it’s an immediate disaster. You see our polling data, and two years ago, fires were, like, a preeminent concern. Right now, not so much. We get away from it a little bit, and other issues become more pressing.”

A new tax proposal also faces an increasingly tax-resistant community, evidenced through the recent failure of fire and school tax measures that Rogers called a “canary in a coal mine.”

“People don’t vote against schools,” he said.

The authority’s poll showed growing reluctance to support new tax measures, with 39% of respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” agreeing that they would “vote no on any tax increase, no matter what it is for.”

That’s more than the 30% polled in September 2019 who said the same, and slightly above the 35% questioned in July 2020 who opposed any tax increase.

“We do see this sort of anti-tax sentiment going up over time, and that’s consistent with what we’ve seen in other communities across the state, as well,” Polsky-Sanchez said.

In the meanwhile, signatures are being gathered to qualify two other local taxes to put to voters next year, which would likely add to tax weariness.

One, proposed for March, would support firefighting efforts across the county. The other, the Sonoma County Child Care & Children's Health Initiative, proposes a quarter-cent sales tax for the November ballot.

In addition, the California Business Roundtable has qualified a constitutional amendment for the November ‘24 ballot that would raise the vote threshold for any new or increased local tax to two-thirds, including those that currently can pass by simple majority.

But with the initial proposal infeasible at present, the question, Rogers said, is “If not this, then what?”

The poll of 800 likely voters was conducted from June 15 to June 22 through live phone interviews and email and text invitations asking respondents to complete a survey online. The survey was offered in English and Spanish.

Oakland-based EMC Research, which conducted the poll, cited a 3.5% margin of error.

Respondents were divided into two groups of 400 each, with half asked to gauge their support for a quarter-cent sales tax and half asked about a $52-a-year parcel tax, which would be charged to fewer people. In either case, it would cost taxpayers about $1 a week, according to climate authority calculations.

Rogers and Hopkins said they still believed there was public support to take greater action on climate change.

“Polling is a snapshot in time, and often times the poll reflects what’s right in front of people,” Rogers said. “Climate change is an existential threat to our community, but to someone having trouble putting food on the table for their kids, it may not be the top priority. And that’s not just an issue in Sonoma County. That’s a worldwide issue.”

You can reach Staff Writer Mary Callahan (she/her) at 707-521-5249 or mary.callahan@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MaryCallahanB.