Comments on: The budget’s back, and $19 million short. Fun!

By: Born in Oakland

Born in Oakland — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:53:35 +0000

Good point Kipper. The continual drumbeat of anti-business, anti-church, anti cop, ant-nuclear family (promotion of alt- families) and anti-military has created a stew in which smug progressives (I used to be one) can push their social agenda on the young, the dumb and the hopeless. Thirty plus years of progressive Democrat pablum in Bay Area cities has distorted reality to the point where only an economic catastrophe can promise some rational solutions.Our fair City is now crying for more help while we have been subsidized by State, Fed and County for over 40 years. With all that, we have created a climate of disinvestment while other municipalities survive quite well, thank you. Wonder why that is? And I certainly don’t blame the long victimized citizens of our town who deserve decent service delivery and economic opportunity.

By: Kipper

Kipper — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:50:25 +0000

I’ve tried to remain off the radar as of late, but my libertarian senses have pulled me into the fold on this one. It is not government’s obligation to provide and fund “cultural centers” of any sort! This is the job and responsibility of the community – churches, groups, business owners, neighbors, etc! We complain about lack of parental and community involvement when we speak here about topics like crime, but then on the other hand expect our government to hand out “free” money and “solutions” which don’t require community support (unless you include the act of willingly throwing sheeple tax money into coffers to be wasted)!

I realize Oakland will absolutely continue to spend and borrow itself into the ground, continuing to fund things out of a sense of moral obligation while ignoring basic economics – Bay Area polictics requires this. It will take disheartening tragedy to shock the current mindset; I hope you are prepared for the results of our current disease.

By: len raphael

len raphael — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:34:17 +0000

Speaking of bankruptcy. AB 155 has a state legislative analyst’s summary of existing law that explains clearly that without the passage of AB 155, bankruptcy does abrogate union contracts. No mention of unfunded pension obligations, or of Calpers obligations. (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_155_cfa_20090505_172112_asm_comm.html)

And yes, CA labor unions support AB 155 while the League of CA Cities,and the various counties oppose it. Was Perata out of office when AB 155 first came up?

-len raphael
temescal

By: len raphael

len raphael — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:29:26 +0000

LG, yes that’s a big part. but i have to put the numbers on a comparable basis for population, and then allocate some of Alameda county to Oakland. Still seems like SF’s deficit is disproportionately huge at 500Mill.

By: livegreen

livegreen — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:35:54 +0000

Isn’t part of it that SF is a City AND a County?

By: len raphael

len raphael — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:05:56 +0000

Seems that even with their 100Mill rainy day reserve, and healthier revenue sources, SF will face drastic cutbacks in city staffing and programming to Oakland. I assume that’s because of SF’s ambitious public health services.

Not sure how SF can have twice the population of Oakland, but its general fund is approx 6x Oakland’s at 2.9 Billion compared to Oakland’s 450Mill. Is it really that much wealthier?

So if SF faces a 500Mill deficit, that’s almost 17% of their general fund budget. But Oakland currently running 20Mill deficit against a 450Mill general fund budget, would be 4%.

I must be missing something. maybe SF is already counting the cost of all their unfunded retirement plans and benefts, but oakland isnt? or the types of expenditures in sf general fund are different from oakland’s.

-len raphael

By: Livegreen

Livegreen — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:17:20 +0000

Len, Thanks for the link. Sounds like even though the WOBT wants to improve things they might be open to closing a school. Hard to know from such a short article
and too early to say. Politics will play into this incl how many people vote, how many peole will be affected and what’s best for there education.

I knew a lot of people transfer to other schools but I didn’t realize it was THAT many. Seems like Oakland has figured out it’s own voucher program except by keeping it in the public schools WITHOUT the vouchers. As long as the hills schools stay good and the slope schools continue to improve that sounds like a GOOD thing…

By: len raphael

len raphael — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:42:53 +0000

LG, re meeting of officials re precipitous drop in enrollment in west oakland public schools. (http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_13629621?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com)

By: livegreen

livegreen — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:25:52 +0000

Len, I must have missed that. What announcement about schools in west oak?

By: len raphael

len raphael — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:59:06 +0000

LG, it wb simple to just ask one of the people on the board of OFCY except there were no email addresses given for the north oakland member. Leaving room for thinking maybe that OFCY is conspiring/cooperating w OUSD to reverse the drop in west oakland school enrollment before OUSD has to close schools there.

When that issue was officially announced last week, my reaction was so what, that means either there are fewer school age kids in west oakland or the schools are so bad that parents send their kids out of district or to charter schools. but the OUSD official stance was that this was a crisis to be fixed.

-len raphael
temescal