” … Roesch said he is bound by the language in the measure itself, which he said “is not ambiguous” in allowing the city to collect Measure Y taxes as long as the money is appropriated for more officers…
The measure doesn’t explicitly require that that the additional officers authorized by the measure be hired, Roesch said….
Roesch said, “I may say it’s unjust and I don’t like it” but he doesn’t know of any legal authority that would allow him to him to rule against the city, based on a ruling by the state Court of Appeals in a similar case.”

And this, ladies & gentleman, is exactly why the new tax is an awful idea.

If y’all want to read the full text, it’s here. Marleen – was that summary accurate? http://rockridgeresidents.org/forums/showthread.php?t=160

What gets me is that when some voters pointed out obvious deficiencies in the plain language of Measure Y *before* its enactment, they were shouted down the council.

There are only two explanations for this hostility to questions about Measure Y: either our council members lack even the most rudimentary skills in legislative construction, or they intentionally mislead the voters. I suspect it’s a little from column A, and a little from column B.

So to “Born in Oakland” – just because you give the City the money, that doesn’t mean they’ll spend it on police officers. You should be aware that 40% of the police academy training costs for Deborah Edgerly’s daughter, who flunked the academy four times(!) were likely paid for by Measure Y. I don’t think that’s what the voters had in mind when they voted for the measure….

City Hall is still saying that we’re going to meet the magic 803 number by the end of the year and I just don’t see it.

At some point the City needs to take a step back and figure out their accounting nightmare. I don’t have faith in any of the numbers – budgeted or actual – at this point. Show me the money going in and the money going out and show me that policies are in place just like any other public company.

In today’s SF chronicle article, (Oakland deficit at 50 million), Jean claimed to have warned others that Edgerly’s estimates were inflated and Quan knew that it would be short.
Knowing that, why did she pout for a bigger general fund slice for the non-profits? Although she did say they may have to cut some support positions for the police force. They better not compromise the police force again.

for the +200/year cost it would still take several years to get to a mediocre policing level that’s unlikely to make a substantial difference in the quality of life in any neighborhood unless all those additional cops and investigators are dedicated to a few sections of east oakland.

by voting for that you would be giving up the best chance in years to force our elected officials pay for adequate levels of basic city services of policing and infrastructure out of existing revenues before they subsidized the array of porkbarrel “programs” and non-profit organizations that thrive in Oakland as tax paying businesses depart or stagnate.

if we don’t restrain our officials ineffective spending now, the Measure Y parcel tax , $200 police parcel tax, the LLAD tax increase, the kidsfirst parcel, will only be the foundation for a bigger muni finance ponzi scheme that eventually will collapse with very painful consequences for city residents.

vote no and send the $200 to marlene sacks to defray her costs suing Oakland over Measure Y and possibly the recent LLAD (i have no connection to sacks, and don’t even know if she’ll accept our money. but if she would post an address here, i’ll contribute.)

-len raphael
temescal

Do you really believe if this passes that we will get what they promise us? Jean Quan is already screaming that Oakland non-profits need more money (It’s for the Children) and its really not too far of a stretch to see where this money (no Sunset clause) will end up.
There may be people in Oakland who still believe the folks downtown, but no one in my house belongs to that group.