Comments on: Measure D: Hold your nose and vote yes

By: Naomi Schiff

Naomi Schiff — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:44:11 +0000

I’m voting YES on all four, but however you are voting, send your ballot in asap, because the deadline is Tuesday. I believe if you haven’t voed by then you can drop off your ballot at the County offices on Oak St.

By: Milt

Milt — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:28:50 +0000

Thanks for deciphering measure D. I am a pretty smart guy, but I can’t always pay enough attention to know what on earth these convoluted measures are really going to do…

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:32:42 +0000

I am voting no on D.

By: len

len — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:58:36 +0000

In our town, cynicism about government and the governed starts at the top.
Council members know that maybe at most 100 oakland voters would ever read the full text of Measure D, let alone compare it to OO.

The other day I found this complete draft proposal for D which would have slightly increased funding but implemented strong mechanisms for performance reviews, shortened the sunset period to 4 years from 12 years, and reduced the mandatory number of teenagers on the oversight board. It was drafted by a former city of oakland auditor. (http://www.oaklandcitystuff.com/docs/Proposed_Ballot_Measure.pdf)

The draft sank without a trace in the backrooms of council.

Council is correct to rely on the apathy of Oakland voters if D passes to lose interest in a substantial reform of city funding of non governmental programs.

Measure D will continue to be another form of Pay-Go patronage for the Mayor and Council via their appointments to the oversight board and the unfund review mechanism.

-len raphael
temescal

By: len

len — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:22:45 +0000

if D goes down, and the state funding for local -12 gets any worse, eliminate all of the OO funding for private youth programs and give that same amount to OUSD with some overall cc appointed oversight with a mandate that all public schools including charter schools etc. get assistance.

would David K would recuse himself from the deal makingif that compromise was on the table?

-len

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:46:00 +0000

It’s more than reasonable. I borrowed a $200 hammer-drill for one afternoon. I’ve never needed a hammer-drill before or since. Would I be willing to spend $10 to avoid spending $190 (+ tax) for the privilege? Hell, I’d be willing to spend the $35 yearly fee for that privilege.

By: Gene

Gene — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:23:00 +0000

Thanks for the info on the proposed fees, RK. As someone who recently started taking advantage of the tool library, I think it's a great resource for Oakland residents. While there are commercial places to rent power tools, the tool library also has things as basic as clamps and squares that some people may only need once and therefore can't justify buying. I think a $10 one-time or $35 annual fee would be reasonable.

By: Becks

Becks — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:24:53 +0000

Just reporting on what staff told Council. You can take it up with them if you like.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:01:29 +0000

Becks, that sounds like laziness. It is possible to do sales projections for new products, marketing departments do it all the time. And yea, they need to be revised as data comes in, but you have a starting point. What good is charging the fee if you really don’t have a clue about how much revenue is involved. The other missing part, of course, is how much it costs to run the tool library, which apparently is not broken out as a separate program in the budget.

By: Becks

Becks — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:36:25 +0000

Robert – As discussed at the Council meeting two weeks ago, nobody knows how much money the fees are going to bring in because this is the first time they’ll be assessed. So it’s difficult to know if the fees will cover the cost of the tool libraries. We’ll know much more after a year or two of assessing the fee, if that’s what the Council votes tonight to do.