Measure Q, Measure Y, Measure NN, and the public trust

So, the Mayor sent an almost comically whiny letter (PDF) to the Council last week explaining why he decided to cancel December’s police academy. First, he seems shocked to learn that Measure Y isn’t just a bottomless pit of money he can use for whatever he wants forever:

Read more

Late night local election results

In November 2006, I cried myself to sleep on election night. The next day, I was so despondent, I could barely bring myself to speak to my co-workers all day. When one of them finally cornered me and demanded I tell her what was wrong, all I could manage to say was “I’m upset about the election. I don’t want to talk about it.” She recoiled, then recovered, then whispered, in like, the most sympathetic tone imaginable, “Oh, V! You poor thing! I had no idea you were a Republican.” Read more

More taxes for everyone, not just property owners

So at the Council meeting way back in July when the Council voted in favor of putting the police parcel tax (Measure NN) on the November ballot, District 2 Councilmember Pat Kernighan, who supported the tax, said that she would be introducing a proposal in the fall that would allow landlords to pass the cost of the new tax onto their tenants. Read more

Ballot Measure Round-up

Oakland voters will have themselves a packed ballot in November. On top of picking a brand-new City Councilmember and deciding whether they feel like adding another $450/year to their tax bills, they also have a whole slew of inane propositions to say no to at the State level. Anyway, in case you’re having trouble keeping track, here’s the rundown.

Local:

• Measure VV, AC-Transit: Increases its existing parcel tax by $48 a year for 10 years to fund transit improvements for seniors, people with disabilities and students. Two-thirds vote required.
• Measure WW, East Bay Regional Park District: Extends existing property tax of $10 per $100,000 assessed valuation per year. Proceeds of $500 million will be used for preservation of creeks, wildlife, open space, purchase of open space and development of parks and trails. Two-thirds vote required.
• Measure N, Oakland: Levies a 10-year parcel tax of $120 a year for improvements at the city’s public charter schools. Two-thirds vote required.
• Measure NN, Oakland: Establishes a parcel tax to fund the addition of police officers, crime management data systems and independent audits. Two-thirds vote required.
• Measure OO, Oakland: Amends city charter to increase the dollar amount of grants to organizations serving children and increase the amount the city must spend on children and youth. Majority vote required.

State:

• Proposition 1: Authorizes the state to sell $9.95 billion in bonds to partially fund a high-speed passenger train between Los Angeles and Northern California. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 2: Prohibits the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 3: Authorizes the state to sell $980 million in bonds for construction projects at children’s hospitals, including the five University of California children’s hospitals. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 4: Amends the California Constitution to require a physician to notify the parent or legal guardian of pregnant minor at least 48 hours prior to performing an abortion involving that minor. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 5: Expands drug treatment diversion programs for criminal offenders, modified parole supervision procedures, allows inmates to earn time off their terms for participation in rehabilitation programs and reduces penalties for marijuana possession. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 6: Creates new state-funded criminal justice programs and mandates that funding for certain existing programs be maintained at 2007-2008 levels. Total funding would increase by $365 million to $965 million starting in 2009. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 7: Establishes and enforces increased use of renewable resources on electricity-generating companies. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 8: Amends the California Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 9: Amends the California Constitution to expand the legal rights of victims of crime and mandate payment of restitution by offenders, restrict early release of inmates and change the procedures for granting and revoking parole. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 10: Authorizes the state to sell $5 billion in bonds for renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency and air emissions reduction programs.
• Proposition 11: Amends the California Constitution to shift the responsibility for drawing political boundaries from the Legislature to an independent citizens commission. Congressional lines are exempted from the new commission’s duties but state Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization districts after the 2010 Census would fall under its purview. Majority vote required.
• Proposition 12: Authorizes the state to sell $900 million in bonds for the Cal-Vet program, which would allow 3,600 additional veterans to receive farm and home loans. Majority vote required.

Oh, and if that’s giving you a headache, just thank your lucky stars that you don’t live in San Francisco, where they have to deal with ballot measures A through V. OMG!

Someone should talk to Ron Dellums about honesty

At Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums made a rare appearance, urging the Council to place his parcel tax on the ballot, which they, of course, did. His remarks were mostly about how this is a decision that should be made by the people:

More importantly, let’s have an honest conversation in the City of Oakland. Let residents make that determination, Mr. President, but let them make it on the facts. Let them make it on a proposal that was reasonable, that was responsible, and ultimately, affordable. Let’s have an open conversation. If the residents of Oakland decide they want to reject it, so be it. This is democracy.

I agree with the Mayor, we should have an honest conversation and the voters do deserve the facts. Of course, I’m not entirely certain we have the same idea of what that means. In my world, for example, an honest conversation would mean that you tell people the truth about the tax and let them make an informed decision for themselves. I think most people would agree with my interpretation. Dellums doesn’t appear to, though. He’s running around telling reporters that residents will only have to pay for a few years:

Dellums said the measure would only be in place for four years.

So…the parcel tax (PDF) the Mayor proposed and the Council approved does not, in fact, last only four years. The ordinance has no sunset clause and multiple references to “each subsequent Fiscal Year” after year 3, when the tax reaches $267/parcel. Not only does the tax have no sunset clause, but last week, when Rules Committee was discussing the tax, a representative from the League of Women Voters spoke specifically to urge that the measure include a sunset, and her request, naturally, was ignored. Now we have a permanent tax on the ballot, and the Mayor is running around saying that it will only last four years!

Is Ron Dellums lying about the length of time residents will have to pay this tax in order to improve chances of it passing? Or, more likely, does he himself not even know what it is he’s asking of Oakland residents? Neither option inspires confidence in his leadership. Despite all the ginormous red flags surrounding this issue, I have to confess that I’m currently undecided on whether or not I will support this tax. But the more people try to lie to me about it, the more I’m inclined to oppose it. One can only hope that the conversation gets an awful lot more honest as the campaign heats up this fall.

Police parcel tax will be on the November ballot

I’m sure you’ll read about it in the newspaper tomorrow, and I’ll do something longer on this discussion probably this weekend, because it was pretty interesting. But there you go. The Council voted in favor of asking you to tax yourself (PDF!) to the tune of $266/year (by the third year) for more police. Now it’s all up to you in November. Ignacio De La Fuente and Desley Brooks said no, everyone else said yes.

Jean Quan informed everyone that the annual cost is roughly what it costs to fill up her car once, so it really isn’t that big a deal. Seriously! Watch it: Read more

Ignacio De La Fuente on why he opposes the police parcel tax

I wouldn’t usually devote a whole post to reprinting a Councilmember’s mass e-mail, but Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente sent out a really excellent letter this afternoon about why he’s opposing the police parcel tax, and I think as many people as possible should read it. So here you go (PDF!). An excerpt: Read more

Police parcel tax for November ballot (Updated!)

This morning, the City Council’s Rules Committee will consider placing a parcel tax for police services, requested by the Mayor, on the November ballot. I’ll be on an airplane, and therefore tragically unable to watch the discussion. Curses!

Anyway, here’s what Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums is asking for. The idea is to add an additional 35 police officers and 25 police service technicians (PSTs) every year for the next three years. By the end of that period, we will the have an additional 105 police officers, bringing the total authorized force to 908, and an additional 75 PSTs, who can perform department jobs that don’t require a sworn officer. They’re cheaper. It’s a refreshingly realistic timetable. Read more

Ignacio De La Fuente requests input on police parcel tax

City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente is asking Oakland residents to weigh in on Ron Dellums’s proposed parcel tax for more police officers. Read more

Thank you, Ignacio! Thank you, Jane Brunner!

So Dellums’s new parcel tax for police on the November ballot will be discussed at Rules Committee on July 10th, then at the City Council meeting on July 15th. I look forward to hearing the details. I’m highly skeptical at this point of the City asking Oakland residents for any more money at all, given the way they spend what we’re already paying, but I was much heartened by comments on the issue from City Council President Igancio De La Fuente and from District 1 Councilmember Jane Brunner at Rules Committee this morning. Read more

Dellums requests tax increase for more police

Read all about it on The Oakbook.

The new parcel tax for additional police officers will likely be accompanied on the November ballot by a charter amendment that would extend the City’s deadline to fund their retirement obligations for the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) (PDF!) beyond the currently set date of July 1, 2026. The City’s currently unfunded liability for PFRS is roughly $330 million, and it’s only going up (seriously. In July 2006, the unfunded liability was estimated at $268.7 million).

The extension was requested at today’s Rules Committee meeting. Ignacio De La Fuente was decidedly skeptical of the measure, saying that he understood the idea behind pushing back the deadline is to offer the City flexibility, but that “At some point, somebody, maybe our grandchildren, will have to pay.” The Committee declined to place the ballot on the City Council’s agenda just yet, instead asking staff to return next week with more information about similar deadlines in other cities.

So just to be clear what’s going on. In November, you will be asked to vote to tax yourself to pay for more police. At the same time, you’ll probably also be asked to vote to put off paying the full costs of our obligations to a number of retired public safety employees until who knows when. I’m not opposed to more police, and I’m not even opposed in theory to a tax increase that would support additional officers. But I don’t think that the City deserves any more taxpayer money until they can demonstrate that they can be trusted to spend what they get responsibly. I don’t want us to end up like Vallejo.

AC Transit may raise taxes instead of fares

I haven’t had time to write about AC Transit’s proposed fare hike, and I don’t have time right now to write about their proposed tax hike instead. I think that both issues are complicated enough to deserve more than a “yes, I support this” or “no, I don’t support this” comment, so I’m not offering any opinions on either at this time. I just wanted to point out, in response to a comment on the Chronicle story that reads:

tax the people who use ac transit only. no one else.

that the benefits of good bus service extended to everyone on the roads, not just the transit dependent. I could go on explaining this, but, um, The Onion really covered it pretty well like 8 years ago, so just go read that.

Next Page »