This mailing, which the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce called a “supplement” to the official voter’s guide, argued against the ordinance. Outraged NPO supporters accused them of counterfeiting a government document. They claimed that the visual design of the pamphlet mislead residents into thinking it was part of the official manual. The Chamber of Commerce, backed by corporate sponsors and local industry, argued that the official guide was unbalanced as it contained no counter argument to five of the measures.
According to city officials, they received no ‘con’ arguments meeting the submission guidelines before the deadline. The Chamber of Commerce argument claimed that the ordinance would “increase the cost of housing, reduce property values and tax revenues for the city, cause many neighborhoods to deteriorate, encourage racial discrimination in housing, and increase the cost of living in Berkeley.” They argued that it would unfairly impede homeowners from making renovations, and prevent the construction of low-income housing. They did acknowledge, however, that “nearly everyone agrees that Berkeley’s Master Plan needs revision and that the Zoning Ordinance must be improved in order to provide better housing and encourage more livable neighborhoods.”
