Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson is the vice mayor of the city of Santa Cruz, and Matt Huffaker is the city manager. They can be reached at esmart@santacruzca.gov.

In a state where local soda taxes were effectively banned until two years ago, the city of Santa Cruz took a bold step to prioritize health over industry pressure. In May, we became the first California city to implement a sugar- sweetened beverage tax since the state preempted new local grocery taxes in 2018.

The idea first surfaced in 2016, when then-council candidate and former Mayor Martine Watkins pushed to center health, equity, and sustainability in every local decision. She recognized that the biggest drivers of health outcomes are decisions made outside the doctor’s office — in housing, education, and transportation. By embedding health considerations into everyday governance, cities can create conditions where the healthy choice is the easy choice.

But the beverage industry moved swiftly to suppress that momentum. In 2018, the industry won a moratorium on new local grocery taxes until 2031. For many cities, that was the end of the road.

Then, in 2023, a California appeals court struck down part of the law as a violation of the state constitution. As a charter city, Santa Cruz retained the legal right to raise revenue through a voter initiative. And that’s exactly what happened.

Measure Z was born out of years of community organizing, informed by science, and strengthened by personal testimony. Kids shared stories about loved ones with diabetes. Health care leaders showed how sugary beverages can cause chronic illnesses and tooth decay. Small-business owners raised implementation questions, which the city addressed with thoughtful solutions.

As momentum built, the beverage industry arrived in force. They spent $2.8 million in Santa Cruz — over 25 times what the “Yes on Z” campaign raised — flooding the area with scare tactics and misinformation.

We didn’t back down. Volunteers knocked on doors. Youth-led coalitions canvassed their own neighborhoods. Local leaders spoke publicly and consistently about the policy’s long-term health benefits and fiscal transparency. From a coastal town came a signal: communities can fight back.

Following in the steps of Berkeley and Philadelphia, the city is now collecting the tax, with revenues projected at $1 million annually. Those funds will go back to local public health programs and vital city services, with guidance from a new community advisory group.

For other cities considering action, our experience offers clear lessons:

1. A robust and authentic grassroots campaign can be more effective than a well-funded special interest campaign.
2. Simple messaging focused on improving the health and safety of the community and investing in vital city services resonated the most with voters.
3. From public educators and small businesses to national organizations such as the American Heart Association, credible, cross-sector partners can have a big influence on the outcome.

But this is about so much more than investing in community health. It’s about upholding the democratic process and standing up to special interests. It’s about local jurisdictions’ autonomy to generate revenue and invest in their communities. We cannot allow industries with deep pockets to dictate the health of our communities.

In Santa Cruz, we’ve shown that a small city can stand up to Big Soda. And win.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Western City, Cal Cities, or its members. Are you interested in submitting an op-ed on an issue important to city leaders? Send a short pitch to editor@westerncity.com.