So yesterday I attended the funeral of Sanjiv Handa, whom City Hall watchers would undoubtedly remember for his tireless rants against public officials for their lack of accountability, violations of public records laws and Brown Act violations, among other faults. He died unexpectedly at the age of 55. As a self-described “journalist,” he was generally more interested in espousing his own opinions, was almost certainly mentally ill, regularly sabotaged his own credibility by threatening to sue without any intention or means to do so, and made numerous and regular factual errors in his “reporting.” Despite all of this, I had to see him on some level as a kindred spirit.
And so I was happy to see the enormous turnout at his memorial service, which included Council President Larry Reid, former councilmember Nate Miley, at least two members of the Measure Y Oversight Committee, former Assistant City Administrator Jeff Baker, numerous bloggers and reporters, Interim Police Chief Howard Jordan, and former City Attorney John Russo, among others. Of the non-family member speakers, most, if not all, commented on Sanjiv’s obsession with Oakland politics, without necessarily making specific mention of the details, such as corruption, mismanagement, or violation of transparency rules. None of them pointed out that many of Sanjiv’s criticisms were well-founded, or that his frustration and discouragement by the ongoing abuses may have actually contributed to his mental health issues or untimely death. But perhaps it was neither the time nor the place for such commentary, so that can be forgiven.
Larry Reid announced his intention of honoring Sanjiv’s memory by dedicating and naming a room at City Hall after him, and the crowd broke into applause. It was a sweet and sincere offer, and I hope he follows through on it. But the fact of the matter is that Sanjiv’s memory should and must be honored in a much more meaningful way, and that is for the City to start respecting and complying with the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act, the two topics most dear to Sanjiv’s heart.
For every Oakland politico I saw at the event, I couldn’t help thinking of their personal and specific violations of those laws. Larry Reid, who most recently violated the Brown Act in the most blatant and appalling manner regarding the appointment of Jakada Imani to the Port Commission. (His appointment was later tossed due in large part to the overt violation of the Brown Act). Jose Dorado, Jean Quan’s appointee to the Measure Y Oversight Committee, who also within the last couple of months tried to hold a meeting without any posting of an agenda whatsoever. (After my strong objections and pointing out the blatant legal violations, the meeting was canceled). Interim Police Chief Howard Jordan, who oversees the police department, is currently facing allegations from the ACLU over failing to respond to numerous public records requests. John Russo oversaw the City Attorney’s office and defended against my lawsuit alleging multiple, obvious and regular violations of the Public Records Act. Jeff Baker, who regularly tried to stymie my efforts at accountability and access to records.
So I ask you and our Oakland officials to consider, in light of Sanjiv’s very recent passing, his obsessions and meaning in life, and the start of a new year, what is truly the most meaningful way to honor his memory? It must start with an acknowledgment that his accusations were on many levels well-founded, that those attending his service were among the offenders, and that saying a few kind words and naming a room in a building is simply not enough. The City must make a concerted and meaningful effort to significantly improve compliance with the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. Only then will I be convinced that their presence at his memorial or their kind eulogies were anything more than lip service and political opportunism.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Thursday, November 17, 2011
City Gets Trounced
So you all know by know that Measure I was defeated by a landslide. Seriously, it was a drubbing of major proportions. Over 62% of voters rejected the measure. That’s almost the opposite of what the City needed to approve it (66%). Wow. So thanks, people, for sending such a strong message. (Come celebrate with us at our victory party tomorrow - Friday - at Ozumo, 6:00 p.m.).
Now, of course it is disappointing that the voter turnout was so abysmal (less than 25%). But I also think that this speaks volumes about residents’ overall disenchantment with our leadership, as well as the ridiculousness of this completely unnecessary mail-in election in the first place. The fact that the other two measures, H and J, were also soundly defeated, pretty much puts the exclamation point on the statement: “You guys are idiots and your idea of solutions for our problems are ridiculous!”
Quan, of course, is already making excuses and threats, as predicted. She’s claiming that the Occupy situation took her focus off of campaigning. This statement is dishonest and absurd. Even prior to Batts’ resignation, a poll indicated that Measure I’s approval was at around 54%, nowhere near what was needed to pass. Then Batts resigned, and its chances of passing fell further. But to top it all off, the City’s handling of the Occupation was incomprehensible. All those people out there who hadn’t seen for themselves exactly how inept and wasteful our government really was with our money, suddenly had a front row seat. First, weeks went by with City leaders doing nothing while the downtown area was taken over by the homeless, bored college students, drug dealers, drug users, anarchists, left-over hippies and whatnot. Then Quan leaves town for some trip to D.C., and her City Administrator and interim police chief are put in charge of the raid on the encampment, which was a P.R. disaster, and cost a fortune, not including all the lawsuits and settlements that may result. But even worse, they let everybody come back to set up an even bigger and messier camp than before, meaning that the original raid was a complete and total waste of money. There is absolutely no disputing the fact that this was the biggest, fastest and most obvious waste of $1,000,000 most taxpayers had ever seen. It was staring them right in the face. So anybody who may have been on the fence about Measure I before, regardless of whether they loved or hated Occupy, would likely have voted no at that stage. If Quan doesn’t realize this, well, I don’t know what to say. Oh, and by the way, she apparently also doesn’t realize she’s not legally allowed to “campaign” anyway, at least not on City time.
Now she’s going around claiming that our police force is going to shrink even more, potholes won’t get filled, libraries will have to be closed, blah, blah blah. Like she’s going to get revenge on the voters that rejected her stupid tax. Of course, she could be talking about how now pensions will have to be reformed, salaries and benefits will have to be trimmed, non-essential social services like Kids First will have to go etc. But no, she’s not saying any of that.
Well, Jean better be careful with all of that doom and gloom revenge talk. Why? Because a recall petition has been filed! Her approval rating is at 15%! Not to mention that after Occupy, she has lost her credibility entirely.
In any event, we need to celebrate the small victories, because those of us that want true reform, accountability and a safer Oakland still have a lot of work ahead of us. See you tomorrow!
Now, of course it is disappointing that the voter turnout was so abysmal (less than 25%). But I also think that this speaks volumes about residents’ overall disenchantment with our leadership, as well as the ridiculousness of this completely unnecessary mail-in election in the first place. The fact that the other two measures, H and J, were also soundly defeated, pretty much puts the exclamation point on the statement: “You guys are idiots and your idea of solutions for our problems are ridiculous!”
Quan, of course, is already making excuses and threats, as predicted. She’s claiming that the Occupy situation took her focus off of campaigning. This statement is dishonest and absurd. Even prior to Batts’ resignation, a poll indicated that Measure I’s approval was at around 54%, nowhere near what was needed to pass. Then Batts resigned, and its chances of passing fell further. But to top it all off, the City’s handling of the Occupation was incomprehensible. All those people out there who hadn’t seen for themselves exactly how inept and wasteful our government really was with our money, suddenly had a front row seat. First, weeks went by with City leaders doing nothing while the downtown area was taken over by the homeless, bored college students, drug dealers, drug users, anarchists, left-over hippies and whatnot. Then Quan leaves town for some trip to D.C., and her City Administrator and interim police chief are put in charge of the raid on the encampment, which was a P.R. disaster, and cost a fortune, not including all the lawsuits and settlements that may result. But even worse, they let everybody come back to set up an even bigger and messier camp than before, meaning that the original raid was a complete and total waste of money. There is absolutely no disputing the fact that this was the biggest, fastest and most obvious waste of $1,000,000 most taxpayers had ever seen. It was staring them right in the face. So anybody who may have been on the fence about Measure I before, regardless of whether they loved or hated Occupy, would likely have voted no at that stage. If Quan doesn’t realize this, well, I don’t know what to say. Oh, and by the way, she apparently also doesn’t realize she’s not legally allowed to “campaign” anyway, at least not on City time.
Now she’s going around claiming that our police force is going to shrink even more, potholes won’t get filled, libraries will have to be closed, blah, blah blah. Like she’s going to get revenge on the voters that rejected her stupid tax. Of course, she could be talking about how now pensions will have to be reformed, salaries and benefits will have to be trimmed, non-essential social services like Kids First will have to go etc. But no, she’s not saying any of that.
Well, Jean better be careful with all of that doom and gloom revenge talk. Why? Because a recall petition has been filed! Her approval rating is at 15%! Not to mention that after Occupy, she has lost her credibility entirely.
In any event, we need to celebrate the small victories, because those of us that want true reform, accountability and a safer Oakland still have a lot of work ahead of us. See you tomorrow!
Monday, November 7, 2011
Time For A Resolution Demanding Occupy Oakland Camp Removal
In response to my email yesterday, Pat Kernighan replied that she, and in her opinion, most of the other council members had voiced opposition to the ongoing encampment. Here is my response:
Pat:
Thanks for reiterating that you oppose the encampment. However, I indicated in my email that “many” public officials want to openly support the Occupiers. I didn’t say “all.” Notably, Nancy Nadel sponsored a Resolution that was the subject of the long meeting last week. Did you or any of the other council members sponsor a Resolution condemning the encampment, the violence, the blight, the loss to business, the assaults on police, the burden to taxpayers, and demanding an immediate removal of the encampment? No, you did not. Rather, you allowed the Nadel Resolution to be the sole topic of conversation. And many of our elected officials did, in fact, seem supportive of this absurd and overtly illegal Resolution (Ms. Kaplan and Ms. Brunner). And while Ms. Quan didn’t go so far as to endorse the Resolution, she certainly hasn’t taken any action to have the encampment removed, which is, in essence, a move in support of it.
Attached is a link to a blog posting about the apparent (serious?) discussion of moving the campers to alternative locations, including the Rockridge Safeway parking lot, or Woodminster. I sincerely hope that the email prompting this post was a hoax! Please, tell me it was a hoax! The City can’t seriously be considering these locations as an alternative? http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2011/11/07/occupy-oakland-update-schaaf-not-in-favor-of-move-plan/
To the extent that the Nadel Resolution is still on the table, and to the extent that the City would be insane enough to consider simply relocating the Occupiers to spread the misery around Oakland, let me emphasize that allowing the encampment to remain ANYWHERE on public space is blatantly illegal. As I have previously indicated earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court held years ago that camping is not protected speech. But regardless of that fact, the Resolution, on its face, endorses a particular viewpoint (I.e. the sentiment of the Occupiers), and proposes allowing the campers to stay indefinitely solely because of the (presumed) endorsement of this viewpoint by the City of Oakland. The Resolution, therefore, on its face constitutes content and viewpoint discrimination, which has repeatedly been denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court in multiple decisions as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. See Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) 408 U.S. 92; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.s. 455; U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000) 120 S. Ct. 1878.
“To allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for the political truth.” Consol. Edis. Co. v. Public Serv. Commn. (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538. And to allow the government to target (or promote) particular views or subjects permits the government to greatly distort the marketplace of ideas. Kenneth L. Karst, Equality as a Central Principle In the First Amendment, 43 Univ. Chicago L. Rev. (1975).
Viewpoint restrictions “pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” Turner Broadcast Sys. Inc. v. FCC (1994) 512 U.S. 622, 641. Most recently, the Second Circuit upheld summary judgment against a city for trying to require a $1 million liability insurance policy for a peace rally at a public park, but imposed no such requirement for a group espousing a different “viewpoint.” See Alexandra Coe v. Town of Blooming Grove & Village of Washingtonville (2nd. Cir. 2011).
Applying the law above, allowing the Occupiers to stay, or simply moving them around so that other districts are equally burdened with the blight and crime, or to ensure that their message continues to be “heard,” is blatantly illegal, particularly under the proposed Resolution, which proposes such accommodations for this particular far left-wing group. Are you prepared to offer such accommodations for the Ku Klux Klan, the Tea Party, the NRA, the Right-to-Lifers, or the Prop 8 Supporters? If not, prepare to get sued. And lose.
Today, I was contacted by somebody who was interested in retaining me for this purpose. Unfortunately, I can’t, due to existing conflicts with my regular job, but I’ll definitely try to refer her. By the way, I hope you have checked out the ACLU’s webpage - they already have you in their cross hairs. In the meantime, I urge you to immediately draft a resolution condemning the encampment and demanding its immediate removal.
Pat:
Thanks for reiterating that you oppose the encampment. However, I indicated in my email that “many” public officials want to openly support the Occupiers. I didn’t say “all.” Notably, Nancy Nadel sponsored a Resolution that was the subject of the long meeting last week. Did you or any of the other council members sponsor a Resolution condemning the encampment, the violence, the blight, the loss to business, the assaults on police, the burden to taxpayers, and demanding an immediate removal of the encampment? No, you did not. Rather, you allowed the Nadel Resolution to be the sole topic of conversation. And many of our elected officials did, in fact, seem supportive of this absurd and overtly illegal Resolution (Ms. Kaplan and Ms. Brunner). And while Ms. Quan didn’t go so far as to endorse the Resolution, she certainly hasn’t taken any action to have the encampment removed, which is, in essence, a move in support of it.
Attached is a link to a blog posting about the apparent (serious?) discussion of moving the campers to alternative locations, including the Rockridge Safeway parking lot, or Woodminster. I sincerely hope that the email prompting this post was a hoax! Please, tell me it was a hoax! The City can’t seriously be considering these locations as an alternative? http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2011/11/07/occupy-oakland-update-schaaf-not-in-favor-of-move-plan/
To the extent that the Nadel Resolution is still on the table, and to the extent that the City would be insane enough to consider simply relocating the Occupiers to spread the misery around Oakland, let me emphasize that allowing the encampment to remain ANYWHERE on public space is blatantly illegal. As I have previously indicated earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court held years ago that camping is not protected speech. But regardless of that fact, the Resolution, on its face, endorses a particular viewpoint (I.e. the sentiment of the Occupiers), and proposes allowing the campers to stay indefinitely solely because of the (presumed) endorsement of this viewpoint by the City of Oakland. The Resolution, therefore, on its face constitutes content and viewpoint discrimination, which has repeatedly been denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court in multiple decisions as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. See Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) 408 U.S. 92; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.s. 455; U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000) 120 S. Ct. 1878.
“To allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for the political truth.” Consol. Edis. Co. v. Public Serv. Commn. (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538. And to allow the government to target (or promote) particular views or subjects permits the government to greatly distort the marketplace of ideas. Kenneth L. Karst, Equality as a Central Principle In the First Amendment, 43 Univ. Chicago L. Rev. (1975).
Viewpoint restrictions “pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” Turner Broadcast Sys. Inc. v. FCC (1994) 512 U.S. 622, 641. Most recently, the Second Circuit upheld summary judgment against a city for trying to require a $1 million liability insurance policy for a peace rally at a public park, but imposed no such requirement for a group espousing a different “viewpoint.” See Alexandra Coe v. Town of Blooming Grove & Village of Washingtonville (2nd. Cir. 2011).
Applying the law above, allowing the Occupiers to stay, or simply moving them around so that other districts are equally burdened with the blight and crime, or to ensure that their message continues to be “heard,” is blatantly illegal, particularly under the proposed Resolution, which proposes such accommodations for this particular far left-wing group. Are you prepared to offer such accommodations for the Ku Klux Klan, the Tea Party, the NRA, the Right-to-Lifers, or the Prop 8 Supporters? If not, prepare to get sued. And lose.
Today, I was contacted by somebody who was interested in retaining me for this purpose. Unfortunately, I can’t, due to existing conflicts with my regular job, but I’ll definitely try to refer her. By the way, I hope you have checked out the ACLU’s webpage - they already have you in their cross hairs. In the meantime, I urge you to immediately draft a resolution condemning the encampment and demanding its immediate removal.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Inside Occupy Oakland's General Assembly
Below is an email that was forwarded to me earlier today. I am publishing it because I think it gives some great insight into who the "Occupiers" are and what they have in store for our City. What is remarkable is that the author (a well-known supporter of Mayor Quan's and housing advocate) considers "doable" options to include "taking over City Hall" and "displace the City Council," as well as "make the City pay for meals and housing" (presumably for the "Occupiers" during the rainy season).
Keep in mind that these are the people that many Oakland officials want to openly support. Yes, that's right. Our elected leaders want to welcome the Occupiers who are seeking to violently overthrow them. Is that not totally surreal? In addition, it appears that the anarchists and pro-violence/vandalism crowd are thoroughly entrenched in OO. I think it is unfair to characterize them as a "splinter group," since they are clearly a large faction, and among the group's leaders. Recent news reports have clearly identified members of the various organizing committees as among those who committed vandalism during the General Strike.
Here we are, on November 6, 2011, and still, the City has absolutely no plan on how to deal with any of this. Meanwhile, the OO camp is growing larger and more organized by the day.
James Vann describes this "takeover" by the Black Bloc-
Sent: Sat, November 5, 2011 5:22:12 PM
Subject: Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
At the general assembly of Occupy Oakland last night, a task presented from the earlier facilitators' meeting was open discussion by the assembly -- arranged in small groupings -- on the question: "How to Grow Occupy Oakland into a Long-Term Sustainable Movement."
I was asked by a contingent sitting to my right to join with their group. I was soon aware that most of the people who constituted our small group were an interrelated faction. One early idea of one of the members was to take OO to the "next level" by "taking over vacant buildings." I injected my disagreement with the idea, that the remarkable success of the entirety of Wednesday's general strike day had already become subsumed in the media by the post-event "violence" of a small dissident contingent in breaking into a nearby vacant building. (An act that led to the day's first police appearance, a massive police descent in riot gear -- replicating the defamed Oct 26 assault -- complete with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and bean bag projectiles. A three-hour riot through surrounding blocks ensued, with dissidents setting fires, breaking store windows, and widespread spray-painting of graffiti, ending in some 100 arrests and the serious wounding of yet another recently returned Iraq War veteran on the scene as an innocent bystander.)
Others of the small group chimed in, stressing the need for OO to set an example that other #Occupy organizations could duplicate by appropriating indoor space for continuation of movement activities through the oncoming rains and snows of Winter.
I suggested, in place of 'strike-day-like' events -- which can only be infrequently carried out -- that OO implement a series of neighborhood assemblies and marches in various neighborhood business districts throughout the city. This would have the effect of educating and recruiting new adherents to the movement from throughout the city. A recent transplant from a southern city told of the dispersed nature of that city, not suited to a centralized general assembly, but rather regional assemblies, and suggested that OO look into a regional-type structure.
During the report-back session, few small groups made what I considered positive or doable suggestions ("take over city hall;" "make city pay for meals and housing;" "displace the city council," etc). However, in what appeared an orchestrated tactic, each time a small group recommended "taking over vacant buildings," it drew the loudest applause. When there was any mention of "non-violent" actions, the dissident members, and their compatriots dispersed throughout, yelled out almost in unison, "diversity of tactics, diversity of tactics." It is clear that the dissident anarchist group of some 150 or so is deeply embedded within Occupy Oakland. (The morning's news shows gave the police breakdown of Wednesday's arrestees as about 25% from out-of-state, the majority from other cities and communities, and about 10 percent as Oakland residents.)
On returning home, I read an unidentified quarter-sized blurb that had been handed out during GA. The neatly printed blurb rationalized Wednesday night's illegal takeover as the "logical next step for the movement," separated the question of "violence against property" (tactical) vs "violence against persons (harmful), and proclaimed that "property violence" occurred only after the cops arrived to dispel them from the appropriated building. The blurb concluded with: "The point here is obvious: if the police don't want violence, they should stay the hell[sic] away."
Meanwhile, Oakland's embattled Mayor forcefully stated at Thursday night's special speak-back session of the city council that "immediate control of its violent members" is a primary condition for the Occupy Oakland encampment to remain in Frank Ogawa Plaza (nee Oscar Grant Plaza).
Clearly, the present situation poses an extremely serious problem for Occupy Oakland. Moreover, a wide disconnect exists between #Occupy goals and anarchists' ideals. The anarchists see #Occupy as a "resistance movement" requiring a vanguard to wage war against oppressive forces (the police). Alternately, #Occupy's basic objective is to expose the greed and attendant policies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and mega-corporations that extract more and more the wealth of the country, while the 99% and the needs of the many increasingly suffer with less and less -- and to cause policy and program changes to restore equitable wealth and resource distribution.
During "General Strike Day" actions, non-violent OO members who attempted to halt acts, being perpetrated by the anarchist group, of property destruction had their own safety threatened with claw hammers. The dissident anarchist faction is deeply embedded throughout and has strongly expressed its integration and inclusion as a legitimate part of OO.
Given the open nature of OO; its consensus decision structure; and the lack of endorsed "leaders," it is unclear how OO will deal with an internal situation that is structurally committed to an agenda of "resistance," inherently contradictory to the aims of the #Occupy movement. Unaddressed, this dilemma threatens the existence of at least Occupy Oakland itself. Clearly, #Occupy, and specifically Occupy Oakland, is faced with a dilemma on incompatible paths that at present seems only likely to continue diverging.
James E Vann,
Oakland, California
Keep in mind that these are the people that many Oakland officials want to openly support. Yes, that's right. Our elected leaders want to welcome the Occupiers who are seeking to violently overthrow them. Is that not totally surreal? In addition, it appears that the anarchists and pro-violence/vandalism crowd are thoroughly entrenched in OO. I think it is unfair to characterize them as a "splinter group," since they are clearly a large faction, and among the group's leaders. Recent news reports have clearly identified members of the various organizing committees as among those who committed vandalism during the General Strike.
Here we are, on November 6, 2011, and still, the City has absolutely no plan on how to deal with any of this. Meanwhile, the OO camp is growing larger and more organized by the day.
James Vann describes this "takeover" by the Black Bloc-
Sent: Sat, November 5, 2011 5:22:12 PM
Subject: Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
At the general assembly of Occupy Oakland last night, a task presented from the earlier facilitators' meeting was open discussion by the assembly -- arranged in small groupings -- on the question: "How to Grow Occupy Oakland into a Long-Term Sustainable Movement."
I was asked by a contingent sitting to my right to join with their group. I was soon aware that most of the people who constituted our small group were an interrelated faction. One early idea of one of the members was to take OO to the "next level" by "taking over vacant buildings." I injected my disagreement with the idea, that the remarkable success of the entirety of Wednesday's general strike day had already become subsumed in the media by the post-event "violence" of a small dissident contingent in breaking into a nearby vacant building. (An act that led to the day's first police appearance, a massive police descent in riot gear -- replicating the defamed Oct 26 assault -- complete with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and bean bag projectiles. A three-hour riot through surrounding blocks ensued, with dissidents setting fires, breaking store windows, and widespread spray-painting of graffiti, ending in some 100 arrests and the serious wounding of yet another recently returned Iraq War veteran on the scene as an innocent bystander.)
Others of the small group chimed in, stressing the need for OO to set an example that other #Occupy organizations could duplicate by appropriating indoor space for continuation of movement activities through the oncoming rains and snows of Winter.
I suggested, in place of 'strike-day-like' events -- which can only be infrequently carried out -- that OO implement a series of neighborhood assemblies and marches in various neighborhood business districts throughout the city. This would have the effect of educating and recruiting new adherents to the movement from throughout the city. A recent transplant from a southern city told of the dispersed nature of that city, not suited to a centralized general assembly, but rather regional assemblies, and suggested that OO look into a regional-type structure.
During the report-back session, few small groups made what I considered positive or doable suggestions ("take over city hall;" "make city pay for meals and housing;" "displace the city council," etc). However, in what appeared an orchestrated tactic, each time a small group recommended "taking over vacant buildings," it drew the loudest applause. When there was any mention of "non-violent" actions, the dissident members, and their compatriots dispersed throughout, yelled out almost in unison, "diversity of tactics, diversity of tactics." It is clear that the dissident anarchist group of some 150 or so is deeply embedded within Occupy Oakland. (The morning's news shows gave the police breakdown of Wednesday's arrestees as about 25% from out-of-state, the majority from other cities and communities, and about 10 percent as Oakland residents.)
On returning home, I read an unidentified quarter-sized blurb that had been handed out during GA. The neatly printed blurb rationalized Wednesday night's illegal takeover as the "logical next step for the movement," separated the question of "violence against property" (tactical) vs "violence against persons (harmful), and proclaimed that "property violence" occurred only after the cops arrived to dispel them from the appropriated building. The blurb concluded with: "The point here is obvious: if the police don't want violence, they should stay the hell[sic] away."
Meanwhile, Oakland's embattled Mayor forcefully stated at Thursday night's special speak-back session of the city council that "immediate control of its violent members" is a primary condition for the Occupy Oakland encampment to remain in Frank Ogawa Plaza (nee Oscar Grant Plaza).
Clearly, the present situation poses an extremely serious problem for Occupy Oakland. Moreover, a wide disconnect exists between #Occupy goals and anarchists' ideals. The anarchists see #Occupy as a "resistance movement" requiring a vanguard to wage war against oppressive forces (the police). Alternately, #Occupy's basic objective is to expose the greed and attendant policies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and mega-corporations that extract more and more the wealth of the country, while the 99% and the needs of the many increasingly suffer with less and less -- and to cause policy and program changes to restore equitable wealth and resource distribution.
During "General Strike Day" actions, non-violent OO members who attempted to halt acts, being perpetrated by the anarchist group, of property destruction had their own safety threatened with claw hammers. The dissident anarchist faction is deeply embedded throughout and has strongly expressed its integration and inclusion as a legitimate part of OO.
Given the open nature of OO; its consensus decision structure; and the lack of endorsed "leaders," it is unclear how OO will deal with an internal situation that is structurally committed to an agenda of "resistance," inherently contradictory to the aims of the #Occupy movement. Unaddressed, this dilemma threatens the existence of at least Occupy Oakland itself. Clearly, #Occupy, and specifically Occupy Oakland, is faced with a dilemma on incompatible paths that at present seems only likely to continue diverging.
James E Vann,
Oakland, California
Thursday, November 3, 2011
My Response To The Occupy Oakland Collaboration Resolution
Dear Oakland Officials:
Last night's events bring home why the Occupy encampment must be removed immediately. The City has utterly lost control of the situation and cannot maintain a safe and orderly downtown area. Businesses and business opportunities have been destroyed. The downtown area had been blighted, and the blight is only worsening. It does not matter that the majority of Occupiers claim to be peaceful and non-violent. The fact of the matter is that the emcampment is blatantly illegal, a blight, and an attractive nuisance. For example, it does not matter that the majority of “sideshow” participants are there to watch and not engage in any illegal activity. It does not matter that a corner drug house does countless transactions, most of which do not result in violence. That is hardly the point. The point is that illegal activity must be shut down, period.
While there may have been 4500 demonstrators yesterday, it is impossible to say how many were from Oakland. Given that Oakland has a population of 400,000 residents, in all likelihood, less than 1% participated in the demonstration. Only 5% of City employees participated in the strike. What does that tell you? The vast majority of Oaklanders DO NOT support Occupy Oakland. While they may support or agree with some of OWS’s goals, this is completely different than supporting Occupy Oakland’s illegal encampment, which is only serving to sully whatever valid message there may be.
At tonight’s meeting, you are likely to hear from numerous campers who have been violating multiple City ordinances. You will hear from anarchists, communists, vagrants and people with no vested interest in the long-term welfare of Oakland. The law-abiding citizens of Oakland, local business owners, and others will likely be far too afraid to even come to downtown Oakland tonight, given the riots that occurred earlier this morning, the thought of having to wade around the encampment just to get to the meeting, the possible retaliation for speaking out against the law-breakers, and the almost guaranteed uncivil behavior during the meeting itself. (Hisses, boos, insults, threats etc.) This is the crowd you have been catering to, and it has got to stop.
The proposed Resolution is blatantly offensive on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. “Unequivocally embrace” First Amendment rights? As previously mentioned, there are no First Amendment rights involved in camping, illegal soup kitchens, illegal Port-a-Potties, tagging, littering, or public urination. As for the 99% vs. 1% sloganeering, I am part of the 99% and I do not feel victimized by the economic system. Rather, I feel victimized by your lack of leadership. These people do not speak for me.
The Resolution recognizes injuries to the protestors, but provides no recognition whatsoever of the injuries to the taxpayers, the local small business, the injuries to Oakland’s public reputation, the injuries to police officers, or the insults and threats that they have endured, the damage to the lawn, the residents who have had to put up with excessive noise, the drivers and bus drivers who have been snarled in traffic, and the lost wages of employees and business forced to shut down.
The Resolution, in short, endorses the viewpoints of the 1% (the fringe, illegal campers), not the 99% (the hard-working, law abiding citizens of Oakland). The Resolution is insulting and embarrassing. Please reject it.
Last night's events bring home why the Occupy encampment must be removed immediately. The City has utterly lost control of the situation and cannot maintain a safe and orderly downtown area. Businesses and business opportunities have been destroyed. The downtown area had been blighted, and the blight is only worsening. It does not matter that the majority of Occupiers claim to be peaceful and non-violent. The fact of the matter is that the emcampment is blatantly illegal, a blight, and an attractive nuisance. For example, it does not matter that the majority of “sideshow” participants are there to watch and not engage in any illegal activity. It does not matter that a corner drug house does countless transactions, most of which do not result in violence. That is hardly the point. The point is that illegal activity must be shut down, period.
While there may have been 4500 demonstrators yesterday, it is impossible to say how many were from Oakland. Given that Oakland has a population of 400,000 residents, in all likelihood, less than 1% participated in the demonstration. Only 5% of City employees participated in the strike. What does that tell you? The vast majority of Oaklanders DO NOT support Occupy Oakland. While they may support or agree with some of OWS’s goals, this is completely different than supporting Occupy Oakland’s illegal encampment, which is only serving to sully whatever valid message there may be.
At tonight’s meeting, you are likely to hear from numerous campers who have been violating multiple City ordinances. You will hear from anarchists, communists, vagrants and people with no vested interest in the long-term welfare of Oakland. The law-abiding citizens of Oakland, local business owners, and others will likely be far too afraid to even come to downtown Oakland tonight, given the riots that occurred earlier this morning, the thought of having to wade around the encampment just to get to the meeting, the possible retaliation for speaking out against the law-breakers, and the almost guaranteed uncivil behavior during the meeting itself. (Hisses, boos, insults, threats etc.) This is the crowd you have been catering to, and it has got to stop.
The proposed Resolution is blatantly offensive on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. “Unequivocally embrace” First Amendment rights? As previously mentioned, there are no First Amendment rights involved in camping, illegal soup kitchens, illegal Port-a-Potties, tagging, littering, or public urination. As for the 99% vs. 1% sloganeering, I am part of the 99% and I do not feel victimized by the economic system. Rather, I feel victimized by your lack of leadership. These people do not speak for me.
The Resolution recognizes injuries to the protestors, but provides no recognition whatsoever of the injuries to the taxpayers, the local small business, the injuries to Oakland’s public reputation, the injuries to police officers, or the insults and threats that they have endured, the damage to the lawn, the residents who have had to put up with excessive noise, the drivers and bus drivers who have been snarled in traffic, and the lost wages of employees and business forced to shut down.
The Resolution, in short, endorses the viewpoints of the 1% (the fringe, illegal campers), not the 99% (the hard-working, law abiding citizens of Oakland). The Resolution is insulting and embarrassing. Please reject it.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Occupy Oakland = Antitheestablishmenttotalitarianism
So remember when you were a kid and learned the longest word in the dictionary? It was antidisestablishmentarianism. I don’t think I ever had a clue what it meant, but I looked it up recently and it had to do with a 19th Century movement to get rid of the Church of England as the official church in England, Ireland and Wales. But now I’ve come up with a longer word that I think is applicable to the Occupy Oakland “movement.” It encompasses so many beliefs and causes that it is basically just unfocused anti-establishment mania, with a lot of totalitarian hypocrisy built in. Like how they’re all “right to free speech,” but then try to restrict their message by forcing the media to “register” at some special tent. And shout down and boo Mayor Quan to prevent her from speaking at their “General Assembly.” And how they’re all for “equality” unless you happen to be a police officer, or a rich person. Then you’re just “pigs” and should just “die.” How they’re all about “peace” and “nonviolence” and then march through the streets chanting, “We are Lovell Mixon” (the rapist who shot and killed four Oakland police officers.). http://oaklandlocal.com/article/occupy-oakland-saturday-night-march-takes-it-%E2%80%98-hood%E2%80%99-mostly-avoids-confrontation-ongoing-ana
Well, these “Occupiers” have really pissed me off, for a whole variety of reasons, and I’ve got a lot to say. As you may know, there is a City Council meeting on Thursday to discuss the whole situation, and I, as well as many others, have no interest in listening to or being around a bunch of (mostly) uninformed, immature anarchists, communists, homeless and/or mentally ill people, cop haters and Alex Supertramps ranting and raving about their “rights” to “decolonize public property,” take over Frank Ogawa Plaza and turn it into their personal garbage dump and litter box. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/28/BANB1LNK52.DTL
So instead, here’s my open letter to the Council and other City officials, which I will be forwarding to them. (Note that this is the third email I will have sent them on this topic). I urge all of you who have an opinion on this to do the same. Our current system, riddled with faults as it is, is still better than the Occupiers‘.
Dear Oakland Officials:
As you are aware, from the beginning of the Occupy Oakland encampment, I urged you to act quickly to enforce the law and not allow the campers to remain. I warned you of the clearly dangerous conditions that existed and were increasing at the "camp." I specifically stated that the longer you allowed this to continue, the harder and more dangerous it would be to get these people to leave. Had you taken the approach by many other cities, and prevented the people from staying overnight in the first place, none of this would be happening. I warned you of the inevitable claims of personal injury and police brutality, and negative publicity when enforcement finally arrived. I warned of the escalating costs.
But Mayor Quan delayed, and the campers became more emboldened. And when the City finally did take action, it appeared none of the concerns about lawsuits, injuries, police brutality claims, or negative publicity were taken into consideration. The actions of last Tuesday backfired on the City, its citizens, its business owners and its reputation worse than anyone apparently imagined. I don’t pretend to be an expert on protestor psychology, but surely that should have been taken into consideration before planning the actions, in the same way that psychology is necessary to negotiate with hostage takers and the like. Moreover, if Oakland is legally precluded from using tear gas or non-lethal projectiles, how could it be that other agencies were not informed of these restrictions?
But then to make matters even worse, the Mayor followed up on her poorly orchestrated police action with a complete reversal of strategy, showing an utter lack of leadership. If Mayor Quan, the City Administrator’s Office and the Police Chief felt a massive police presence was required to quell the disturbance and enforce the law, then so be it. That decision needed to be defended both before and after the actions taken. But instead, our wishy-washy Mayor, influenced by an angry mob made up largely of anarchists, communists, non-Oaklanders, homeless and mentally ill people, rather than the actual constituency, decided to let the Occupiers put their tents right back up where they were before, with impunity. So now we have umpteen potential tort claims against the City, a seriously injured veteran, a massively damaged reputation world-wide, local businesses on the brink, and a tab for likely over $1 million, and it was all for NOTHING? Are you kidding me?
By allowing the Occupiers to put back their tents, the City administration entirely lost its credibility. It issued eviction notices and warnings, and cleared them out, and now they’re back, with no consequences. Any parent will tell you that this approach is counterproductive. Just how do you expect to get a handle on the situation now?
So, I guess that’s where I suppose you’re at with this Council meeting. A choice between making them leave again, or doing nothing, and letting them stay. I just want to put in my two cents and reiterate my request that you make them leave. And by leave, I mean, follow all applicable City ordinances. So if they want to protest and exercise their free speech rights during the day, and read the Communist Manifesto non-stop from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., of course they should be able to do that. But no more tents, overnight camping, improvised soup kitchens and all night bongo drum and pot parties. Why? Because that is not protected speech! As the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1984, in Clark v. Community for Non Violence (1984) 468 U.S. 288, camping is not speech. It is not protected by the First Amendment. And had the City administration made this clear to the campers and the press and the community from the outset, perhaps we would not be where we are today. But instead, there was way too much talk about acknowledging “free speech” rights, when this was never even the issue. Particularly given the fact that had the “speech” been to support the Tea Party, the recall of Jean Quan, or some other cause traditionally “progressive” Oakland leaders don’t think kindly of, the protesters would have been cited and removed faster than Sanjiv Handa can say “East Bay News Service.”
The restrictions at issue here, regarding camping, noise, health and safety, were all fully enforceable by the City, and should have been enforced from the get-go. As Willie Brown opined in his column earlier today, when you let one tent stay, it soon becomes two, then five, then 10, and before you know it, it looks like a refugee camp meets Burning Man. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/30/BAE41LNOTT.DTL
It becomes an area most people don’t want to come to. It drives away customers for small businesses. It drives away potential business that might want to move in. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/28/MN951LNTGB.DTL
It in turn reduces our tax base, and makes the City that much poorer. And that’s not even mentioning the ongoing threats to public health and safety that will only multiply, creating more potential liability and further damaging Oakland’s reputation. In short, it is a terrible, terrible strategy for the long-term welfare of our City.
Moreover, it is an insult and a total slap in the face to all of the law-abiding citizens of Oakland. When we stay an extra minute in a metered parking space, we get slapped with an $80 fine. Which we pay. And as you are undoubtedly aware from the scathing Grand Jury report, when homeowners on the brink of foreclosure leave a few toys strewn in their yard, they get cited for blight and a lien for thousands of dollars is slapped on their house. Is that “fair?” Is that “equality?” No, it is not. The law is the law. You were elected you to enact the laws, and you were elected you to enforce the laws. And those laws need to be enforced regardless of whether the violators are rich or poor, black or white, young or old, Republican or Democrat, from East Oakland or the Hills. Regardless of whether the laws involve parking violations, blight in somebody’s yard, or blight in front of City Hall. If you want to support the value of equality and equal enforcement of the law, the campers must go. How you make that happen, I leave up to you. That’s why you have this job.
Well, these “Occupiers” have really pissed me off, for a whole variety of reasons, and I’ve got a lot to say. As you may know, there is a City Council meeting on Thursday to discuss the whole situation, and I, as well as many others, have no interest in listening to or being around a bunch of (mostly) uninformed, immature anarchists, communists, homeless and/or mentally ill people, cop haters and Alex Supertramps ranting and raving about their “rights” to “decolonize public property,” take over Frank Ogawa Plaza and turn it into their personal garbage dump and litter box. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/28/BANB1LNK52.DTL
So instead, here’s my open letter to the Council and other City officials, which I will be forwarding to them. (Note that this is the third email I will have sent them on this topic). I urge all of you who have an opinion on this to do the same. Our current system, riddled with faults as it is, is still better than the Occupiers‘.
Dear Oakland Officials:
As you are aware, from the beginning of the Occupy Oakland encampment, I urged you to act quickly to enforce the law and not allow the campers to remain. I warned you of the clearly dangerous conditions that existed and were increasing at the "camp." I specifically stated that the longer you allowed this to continue, the harder and more dangerous it would be to get these people to leave. Had you taken the approach by many other cities, and prevented the people from staying overnight in the first place, none of this would be happening. I warned you of the inevitable claims of personal injury and police brutality, and negative publicity when enforcement finally arrived. I warned of the escalating costs.
But Mayor Quan delayed, and the campers became more emboldened. And when the City finally did take action, it appeared none of the concerns about lawsuits, injuries, police brutality claims, or negative publicity were taken into consideration. The actions of last Tuesday backfired on the City, its citizens, its business owners and its reputation worse than anyone apparently imagined. I don’t pretend to be an expert on protestor psychology, but surely that should have been taken into consideration before planning the actions, in the same way that psychology is necessary to negotiate with hostage takers and the like. Moreover, if Oakland is legally precluded from using tear gas or non-lethal projectiles, how could it be that other agencies were not informed of these restrictions?
But then to make matters even worse, the Mayor followed up on her poorly orchestrated police action with a complete reversal of strategy, showing an utter lack of leadership. If Mayor Quan, the City Administrator’s Office and the Police Chief felt a massive police presence was required to quell the disturbance and enforce the law, then so be it. That decision needed to be defended both before and after the actions taken. But instead, our wishy-washy Mayor, influenced by an angry mob made up largely of anarchists, communists, non-Oaklanders, homeless and mentally ill people, rather than the actual constituency, decided to let the Occupiers put their tents right back up where they were before, with impunity. So now we have umpteen potential tort claims against the City, a seriously injured veteran, a massively damaged reputation world-wide, local businesses on the brink, and a tab for likely over $1 million, and it was all for NOTHING? Are you kidding me?
By allowing the Occupiers to put back their tents, the City administration entirely lost its credibility. It issued eviction notices and warnings, and cleared them out, and now they’re back, with no consequences. Any parent will tell you that this approach is counterproductive. Just how do you expect to get a handle on the situation now?
So, I guess that’s where I suppose you’re at with this Council meeting. A choice between making them leave again, or doing nothing, and letting them stay. I just want to put in my two cents and reiterate my request that you make them leave. And by leave, I mean, follow all applicable City ordinances. So if they want to protest and exercise their free speech rights during the day, and read the Communist Manifesto non-stop from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., of course they should be able to do that. But no more tents, overnight camping, improvised soup kitchens and all night bongo drum and pot parties. Why? Because that is not protected speech! As the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1984, in Clark v. Community for Non Violence (1984) 468 U.S. 288, camping is not speech. It is not protected by the First Amendment. And had the City administration made this clear to the campers and the press and the community from the outset, perhaps we would not be where we are today. But instead, there was way too much talk about acknowledging “free speech” rights, when this was never even the issue. Particularly given the fact that had the “speech” been to support the Tea Party, the recall of Jean Quan, or some other cause traditionally “progressive” Oakland leaders don’t think kindly of, the protesters would have been cited and removed faster than Sanjiv Handa can say “East Bay News Service.”
The restrictions at issue here, regarding camping, noise, health and safety, were all fully enforceable by the City, and should have been enforced from the get-go. As Willie Brown opined in his column earlier today, when you let one tent stay, it soon becomes two, then five, then 10, and before you know it, it looks like a refugee camp meets Burning Man. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/30/BAE41LNOTT.DTL
It becomes an area most people don’t want to come to. It drives away customers for small businesses. It drives away potential business that might want to move in. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/28/MN951LNTGB.DTL
It in turn reduces our tax base, and makes the City that much poorer. And that’s not even mentioning the ongoing threats to public health and safety that will only multiply, creating more potential liability and further damaging Oakland’s reputation. In short, it is a terrible, terrible strategy for the long-term welfare of our City.
Moreover, it is an insult and a total slap in the face to all of the law-abiding citizens of Oakland. When we stay an extra minute in a metered parking space, we get slapped with an $80 fine. Which we pay. And as you are undoubtedly aware from the scathing Grand Jury report, when homeowners on the brink of foreclosure leave a few toys strewn in their yard, they get cited for blight and a lien for thousands of dollars is slapped on their house. Is that “fair?” Is that “equality?” No, it is not. The law is the law. You were elected you to enact the laws, and you were elected you to enforce the laws. And those laws need to be enforced regardless of whether the violators are rich or poor, black or white, young or old, Republican or Democrat, from East Oakland or the Hills. Regardless of whether the laws involve parking violations, blight in somebody’s yard, or blight in front of City Hall. If you want to support the value of equality and equal enforcement of the law, the campers must go. How you make that happen, I leave up to you. That’s why you have this job.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Measure Y Oversight Committee To General Public: Screw You!
So this afternoon I get a phone call from the Chairperson of the Measure Y Oversight Committee meeting, Jose Dorado, letting me know that the committee is meeting tonight (Tuesday) to hear the “pros and cons” of Measure I, and he wanted to make sure that our group, Oaklanders Against The Parcel Tax, was invited. I told him that the law precluded the MYOC from endorsing any position, pro or con, to which he responded that he was already told that by Assistant City Attorney Mark Morodomi, and he had modified his proposed agenda language accordingly. Now, he claimed, the issue was essentially, what would be the impacts on Measure Y programs if Measure I passed or didn’t pass? However, he admitted that the modified agenda item had not been posted. So, I said, "well, if it wasn’t posted, then you can’t meet. It’s that simple." He acknowledged that Mr. Morodomi told him the same thing, but they were going to meet anyway.
I then explained that the purpose of the Brown Act is to invite public participation, and to ensure that the public knows what its government is doing, and that what he was doing was against the letter and the spirit of that law. He insisted he knew this and was going to meet anyway. I told him that under these circumstances there was no way I could dignify the meeting with any presentation from our group. Which probably suited him just fine, given that he was appointed by Jean Quan and the whole purpose for him was to proselytize to his small herd of sheep. Except they’re really small - less than 10 of them. And the meeting isn’t on KTOP. And nobody wants to come to City Hall tonight anyway, since there’s another Occupy Oakland riot going on. But whatever. He just totally didn’t care about any of this.
I was unable to actually contact any City officials to discuss the matter, other than Claudia Albano, who is now the Assistant City Administrator in charge of Measure Y, who assured me that she had told Mr. Dorado exactly the same thing, but couldn’t stop him from having the meeting. I told her that the meeting was scheduled to take place at City Hall, and since this was an illegal use of City Resources, she could just lock the door and make him meet at some local bar. She said she’d think about it.
So there you have it, folks - a public advisory committee that defies the authority of the City Attorney’s Office and the City Administrator’s office, as well as the need and desire for public participation. Pathetic.
I then explained that the purpose of the Brown Act is to invite public participation, and to ensure that the public knows what its government is doing, and that what he was doing was against the letter and the spirit of that law. He insisted he knew this and was going to meet anyway. I told him that under these circumstances there was no way I could dignify the meeting with any presentation from our group. Which probably suited him just fine, given that he was appointed by Jean Quan and the whole purpose for him was to proselytize to his small herd of sheep. Except they’re really small - less than 10 of them. And the meeting isn’t on KTOP. And nobody wants to come to City Hall tonight anyway, since there’s another Occupy Oakland riot going on. But whatever. He just totally didn’t care about any of this.
I was unable to actually contact any City officials to discuss the matter, other than Claudia Albano, who is now the Assistant City Administrator in charge of Measure Y, who assured me that she had told Mr. Dorado exactly the same thing, but couldn’t stop him from having the meeting. I told her that the meeting was scheduled to take place at City Hall, and since this was an illegal use of City Resources, she could just lock the door and make him meet at some local bar. She said she’d think about it.
So there you have it, folks - a public advisory committee that defies the authority of the City Attorney’s Office and the City Administrator’s office, as well as the need and desire for public participation. Pathetic.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Electioneering And Brown Act Violations Galore At City Council Meeting
So last week’s Council meeting was quite a doozy. First, Desley Brooks made a great argument about why the Council shouldn’t even consider the Resolution on how to allocate the Measure I funds, because it was illegal “electioneering.” It was so great, in part because it practically mirrored the arguments outlined in my earlier letter. Then she asked the City Attorney on the dais (didn’t recognize her) for a legal opinion on whether it was legal to consider the resolution, given the obvious use of City resources, the timing of the resolution (the week ballots were being mailed out) and the famous California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott. The City Attorney admitted she was “unfamiliar” with that case, which totally floored me, because anybody representing public entities should know that case, but whatever. Not too impressive. In the end, they ended up passing on the matter so that the City Attorney could scramble around and do some last minute legal research.
In the interim, we were treated to the most blatant violation of the Brown Act I had ever witnessed. The dispute revolved around who was going to get appointed to the Port Commission: somebody named Margaret Gordon, or somebody named Jakada Imani. To be honest, I know next to nothing about both of them. But the Imani guy brought over 60 speakers, which I guess the Council didn’t want to listen to because they had already made up their minds. Which, of course, really defeats the whole point of public comment, doesn’t it? It was so completely obvious that they had already discussed the matter behind the scenes, in complete violation of the Brown Act, and decided the Imani guy had it in the bag, and that’s what Larry Reid said, telling everybody they could save themselves the trouble. So they all yelled and screamed with glee and then left, leaving us and the Gordon supporters just standing there with mouths agape. (Since then, I have heard the City admitted they blew it and now they have to do the vote over, but it really exposed the whole council meeting thing as totally farcical).
So then the Resolution came back for discussion, and everybody used their minutes to basically advocate for their position on the actual Measure (totally illegal), including Quan, who basically launched into a total commercial for the damn thing until Desley finally shut her up. But a few points were scored. Desley and Ignacio made it clear that it was absurd to be considering a resolution allocating funds the City had not received, and was not likely to receive, not to mention illegal electioneering. Even Jane Brunner said it didn’t pass the “smell test” and voted against it. Pat Kernighan admitted that it would be a “miracle” if the parcel tax passed, and both she and Libby Schaaf admitted over and over that the Resolution is not binding.
So there you have it, folks, a non-binding Resolution to allocate funds that the City almost certainly will never see. All staged, pretty much like a commercial, in violation of the law and common sense. Now get and vote NO on Measure I.
In the interim, we were treated to the most blatant violation of the Brown Act I had ever witnessed. The dispute revolved around who was going to get appointed to the Port Commission: somebody named Margaret Gordon, or somebody named Jakada Imani. To be honest, I know next to nothing about both of them. But the Imani guy brought over 60 speakers, which I guess the Council didn’t want to listen to because they had already made up their minds. Which, of course, really defeats the whole point of public comment, doesn’t it? It was so completely obvious that they had already discussed the matter behind the scenes, in complete violation of the Brown Act, and decided the Imani guy had it in the bag, and that’s what Larry Reid said, telling everybody they could save themselves the trouble. So they all yelled and screamed with glee and then left, leaving us and the Gordon supporters just standing there with mouths agape. (Since then, I have heard the City admitted they blew it and now they have to do the vote over, but it really exposed the whole council meeting thing as totally farcical).
So then the Resolution came back for discussion, and everybody used their minutes to basically advocate for their position on the actual Measure (totally illegal), including Quan, who basically launched into a total commercial for the damn thing until Desley finally shut her up. But a few points were scored. Desley and Ignacio made it clear that it was absurd to be considering a resolution allocating funds the City had not received, and was not likely to receive, not to mention illegal electioneering. Even Jane Brunner said it didn’t pass the “smell test” and voted against it. Pat Kernighan admitted that it would be a “miracle” if the parcel tax passed, and both she and Libby Schaaf admitted over and over that the Resolution is not binding.
So there you have it, folks, a non-binding Resolution to allocate funds that the City almost certainly will never see. All staged, pretty much like a commercial, in violation of the law and common sense. Now get and vote NO on Measure I.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
City Council To Consider Phony and Illegal Resolutions On Tuesday
According to an interview with Larry Reid, citing a recent poll (a copy of which I have requested) Measure I currently doesn't have close to the necessary support to pass. So in an effort to buy votes and deceive voters, the City Council intends to consider two resolutions on Tuesday that would supposedly indicate how the funds would be spent. However, a resolution such as this would have no legal effect, since the language isn't contained in the ballot measure itself. In addition, even consideration of the resolution is using public resources for campaigning, and is illegal. Below is the text of a letter I sent to Oakland officials that lays it all out.
Dear Oakland Officials:
This is in response to the two resolutions being considered at this coming Tuesday’s City Council meeting, regarding proposed allocations of funds from Measure I, a proposed parcel tax that has not yet been voted on, and which, according to a recent poll, is unlikely to pass. We object to the Council’s consideration of these two proposals on the grounds that it is not only a waste of public resources, but is also illegal, and meaningless.
As you are well aware, the Council had the option of drafting a parcel tax measure that was truly a special tax, i.e. a tax that was designated to benefit specific city services, like Measure Y (public safety) or Measure Q (libraries). But City officials were no doubt aware at the time the language of the ballot measure was considered that the City had failed miserably to satisfy the promises of both measures. Specifically, they were excruciatingly aware of the original promises made by Measure Y - to add 57 new community policing officers, and expand the strength of the police force to 803 officers. Today, the force stands at 651 officers, and is falling every month. Many beats in Oakland lack any dedicated community policing officer. With respect to Measure Q, City officials promised that branch libraries would be open 6 days a week. Today, none of them are.
So knowing that the City had failed to honor the promises of its two most recent parcel taxes, you intentionally drafted a measure that contained no promises whatsoever. No promises for specific funding, no promises for improved services - nothing. And yet, you hoped that citizens would still fall for it. You hoped that your threats of further reduced services, and your pleas for charity would be enough. Now, it has become clear that they were not, and you are resorting to new lows in political tactics to try to convince voters that designated services will receive designated funds from this tax. We know that the proposed resolutions are a farce.
As the Council, the City Attorney and I are all aware, the legal restrictions on how Measure I funds may be spent are governed by Measure I itself. “The relationship between the public entity and the electorate arising out of voter-approved revenue measures has been alternatively described either strictly contractual or analogous to a contract." (Committee for Responsible School Expansion v. Hermosa Beach City School Dist. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1191 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 705] (Hermosa Beach), citing Associated Students of North Peralta Community College v. Board of Trustees (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 672, 676-677 [155 Cal.Rptr. 250] (Associated Students)) cited in Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070 (2010) "`It is clear that proceeds of a bond issue may be expended only for the purpose authorized by the voters in approving issue of the bonds [citation].” It is the ballot measure itself that determines the extent of the restrictions. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1397 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128].) Were it not so, the City would have been obligated to honor the commitments made it campaign propoganda on on the City's own "FAQ" website regarding expansion of the police force to 803 officers. But the City effectively argued that it was not actually obligated to expand the force, because the promises weren't contained in the ballot measure itself.
Therefore, the proposed Resolutions are meaningless, as they are not binding on either the City or the voters. Moreover, you know full well that they are meaningless and non-binding.
It is clear that the only reason that these two competing resolutions are being presented is to serve a political purpose, i.e. to campaign in favor Measure I. This is patently illegal, as you and the City Attorney are also aware. Government Code section 54964 and 8314 and the California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 206 all prohibit the use of public funds and resources to advocate for or against a particular ballot measure. Because this is precisely what these resolutions are intended to do, consideration of these resolutions is explicitly prohibited by the law.
The proposed resolutions seek to designate specific purposes for the funds. However, there are currently no funds, since the measure has not yet been approved by the electorate. Therefore, consideration of the resolution is a waste of time, and a clear form of “counting your chickens before they’re hatched,” to coin a legal term. Obviously, if the measure were to pass, the Council could expeditiously amend the budget to designate the funds for needed purposes, and there is no need to do so prior to the election. Unless, of course, the Council believes the need exists because the Measure appears to be doomed for failure, and designating the funds for specific purposes would help defeat the opposition. For example, if the Council designates approximately $5 million for police academies, the Council could effectively “buy” the support of the Oakland Police Officers Association. In addition, in response to complaints from voters that say, “but we don’t know how the money can be spent,” you could tell such voters, who have no idea that the resolution is not legally binding, “oh, but now you do!”
Member of the City Council and Ms. Quan, your efforts are transparent and patently illegal. We request that you seek an opinion from the City Attorney’s office. Upon receipt of a legal opinion, this will be confirmed. We therefore also ask that this item be removed from consideration from Tuesday night’s agenda
Dear Oakland Officials:
This is in response to the two resolutions being considered at this coming Tuesday’s City Council meeting, regarding proposed allocations of funds from Measure I, a proposed parcel tax that has not yet been voted on, and which, according to a recent poll, is unlikely to pass. We object to the Council’s consideration of these two proposals on the grounds that it is not only a waste of public resources, but is also illegal, and meaningless.
As you are well aware, the Council had the option of drafting a parcel tax measure that was truly a special tax, i.e. a tax that was designated to benefit specific city services, like Measure Y (public safety) or Measure Q (libraries). But City officials were no doubt aware at the time the language of the ballot measure was considered that the City had failed miserably to satisfy the promises of both measures. Specifically, they were excruciatingly aware of the original promises made by Measure Y - to add 57 new community policing officers, and expand the strength of the police force to 803 officers. Today, the force stands at 651 officers, and is falling every month. Many beats in Oakland lack any dedicated community policing officer. With respect to Measure Q, City officials promised that branch libraries would be open 6 days a week. Today, none of them are.
So knowing that the City had failed to honor the promises of its two most recent parcel taxes, you intentionally drafted a measure that contained no promises whatsoever. No promises for specific funding, no promises for improved services - nothing. And yet, you hoped that citizens would still fall for it. You hoped that your threats of further reduced services, and your pleas for charity would be enough. Now, it has become clear that they were not, and you are resorting to new lows in political tactics to try to convince voters that designated services will receive designated funds from this tax. We know that the proposed resolutions are a farce.
As the Council, the City Attorney and I are all aware, the legal restrictions on how Measure I funds may be spent are governed by Measure I itself. “The relationship between the public entity and the electorate arising out of voter-approved revenue measures has been alternatively described either strictly contractual or analogous to a contract." (Committee for Responsible School Expansion v. Hermosa Beach City School Dist. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1191 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 705] (Hermosa Beach), citing Associated Students of North Peralta Community College v. Board of Trustees (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 672, 676-677 [155 Cal.Rptr. 250] (Associated Students)) cited in Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070 (2010) "`It is clear that proceeds of a bond issue may be expended only for the purpose authorized by the voters in approving issue of the bonds [citation].” It is the ballot measure itself that determines the extent of the restrictions. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1397 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128].) Were it not so, the City would have been obligated to honor the commitments made it campaign propoganda on on the City's own "FAQ" website regarding expansion of the police force to 803 officers. But the City effectively argued that it was not actually obligated to expand the force, because the promises weren't contained in the ballot measure itself.
Therefore, the proposed Resolutions are meaningless, as they are not binding on either the City or the voters. Moreover, you know full well that they are meaningless and non-binding.
It is clear that the only reason that these two competing resolutions are being presented is to serve a political purpose, i.e. to campaign in favor Measure I. This is patently illegal, as you and the City Attorney are also aware. Government Code section 54964 and 8314 and the California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 206 all prohibit the use of public funds and resources to advocate for or against a particular ballot measure. Because this is precisely what these resolutions are intended to do, consideration of these resolutions is explicitly prohibited by the law.
The proposed resolutions seek to designate specific purposes for the funds. However, there are currently no funds, since the measure has not yet been approved by the electorate. Therefore, consideration of the resolution is a waste of time, and a clear form of “counting your chickens before they’re hatched,” to coin a legal term. Obviously, if the measure were to pass, the Council could expeditiously amend the budget to designate the funds for needed purposes, and there is no need to do so prior to the election. Unless, of course, the Council believes the need exists because the Measure appears to be doomed for failure, and designating the funds for specific purposes would help defeat the opposition. For example, if the Council designates approximately $5 million for police academies, the Council could effectively “buy” the support of the Oakland Police Officers Association. In addition, in response to complaints from voters that say, “but we don’t know how the money can be spent,” you could tell such voters, who have no idea that the resolution is not legally binding, “oh, but now you do!”
Member of the City Council and Ms. Quan, your efforts are transparent and patently illegal. We request that you seek an opinion from the City Attorney’s office. Upon receipt of a legal opinion, this will be confirmed. We therefore also ask that this item be removed from consideration from Tuesday night’s agenda
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
When It Rains It Pours: Measure Y Tax Doubles and Chief Batts Quits
For you property owners out there, you probably got your tax bills today, or will soon. On the bill you will see two entries for “Violence Prevention Tax” - one for 2011, and one for 2012. The first is for $91.38, the second for $92.62. So even though the police force is dropping, your tax is still going up. And why are there two entries on your bill? Because in 2010, they laid off 80 officers, didn’t “appropriate” sufficient funds to justify collecting the tax, and couldn’t legally collect the tax. So it wasn’t collected last year. But then over 66% of voters approved Measure BB, which permitted the City to continue collecting the tax, no matter how small our police force got, and also permitted the City to collect the tax retroactively. If you didn’t vote for BB, good for you. But if you did, you don’t have any right to complain. Oh, and more bad news - our ad valorem tax rate went up again as well.
I am sad, but not surprised, to see Chief Batts announce his resignation today. While he was fairly diplomatic in his comments, I think most of us understand why he just couldn’t take it anymore. At last week’s council meeting, after speaking out in support of youth curfews, expanded gang injunctions, and anti-loitering ordinances, an angry mob of gangsters, wannabe gangsters, and their friends and relatives crowded the chambers and loudly, rudely and angrily booed, hissed and mocked him and anyone else who spoke out in favor of these potentially game-changing measures. He had to just roll his eyes and think to himself, “who are these animals and why should I care if they or their relatives get popped in the street? They are not ready for civility, peace and respect in their neighborhoods. “
What is unfortunate, however, is that this loud, angry mob does not actually speak for the majority of Oaklanders. And yet four of the Council members allowed themselves to be swayed by the mob mentality; Quan broke the tie and essentially killed the measures by sending them back to committee. Notably, the mob was appeared to be mobilized largely by Michael Siegel, son and legal associate of Dan Siegel, Quan’s personal legal advisor. Of course.
And that was just the icing on the cake, after Quan laid off 80 police officers. Batts announced he needed 925 officers to get the job done. Now we have 650, and the number is dropping every month. Quan could have proposed a parcel tax that would have dedicated all of the funds toward increased police staffing. But instead, she put forward a proposal that dedicates none.
OPOA’s juvenile tactics certainly didn’t help either. Batts recently announced a policy prohibiting profanity. OPOA union president Dom Arotzarena publicly scorned the policy, claiming that officers couldn’t get their jobs done unless they were allowed to cuss in the workplace, or to citizens, for fear of seeming “soft.” Other officers joined in mocking the new policy. Excuse me? A force that is still reeling from the humiliation of the Riders scandal thinks its appropriate to direct profanity toward citizens? I don’t care if the suspect is armed, dangerous, and a confirmed sociopath - there is no research showing that using the “F” word will somehow diffuse the situation. Again, Batts must have read Arotzarena’s quotes in the Wall Street Journal, rolled his eyes and thought, “WTF?” (But he would have the decency and professionalism not to say it!)
If there is one silver lining to this cloud, I hope that Batts’ departure is a wake up call. When the City Attorney resigns, calling the leadership “morally corrupt,” and when the police chief resigns shortly thereafter, accusing the leadership of tying his hands and not allowing him to do his job, citizens need to realize who is running this City, and that it will never get any better unless they are voted out of office and replaced with individuals with the courage and integrity to make public safety our number one priority, even if it means making a the criminal element, and the supporters of their “civil liberties,“ unhappy. Our leadership has catered to that element for far too long, and the proof is in the pudding - it ain’t working.
I am sad, but not surprised, to see Chief Batts announce his resignation today. While he was fairly diplomatic in his comments, I think most of us understand why he just couldn’t take it anymore. At last week’s council meeting, after speaking out in support of youth curfews, expanded gang injunctions, and anti-loitering ordinances, an angry mob of gangsters, wannabe gangsters, and their friends and relatives crowded the chambers and loudly, rudely and angrily booed, hissed and mocked him and anyone else who spoke out in favor of these potentially game-changing measures. He had to just roll his eyes and think to himself, “who are these animals and why should I care if they or their relatives get popped in the street? They are not ready for civility, peace and respect in their neighborhoods. “
What is unfortunate, however, is that this loud, angry mob does not actually speak for the majority of Oaklanders. And yet four of the Council members allowed themselves to be swayed by the mob mentality; Quan broke the tie and essentially killed the measures by sending them back to committee. Notably, the mob was appeared to be mobilized largely by Michael Siegel, son and legal associate of Dan Siegel, Quan’s personal legal advisor. Of course.
And that was just the icing on the cake, after Quan laid off 80 police officers. Batts announced he needed 925 officers to get the job done. Now we have 650, and the number is dropping every month. Quan could have proposed a parcel tax that would have dedicated all of the funds toward increased police staffing. But instead, she put forward a proposal that dedicates none.
OPOA’s juvenile tactics certainly didn’t help either. Batts recently announced a policy prohibiting profanity. OPOA union president Dom Arotzarena publicly scorned the policy, claiming that officers couldn’t get their jobs done unless they were allowed to cuss in the workplace, or to citizens, for fear of seeming “soft.” Other officers joined in mocking the new policy. Excuse me? A force that is still reeling from the humiliation of the Riders scandal thinks its appropriate to direct profanity toward citizens? I don’t care if the suspect is armed, dangerous, and a confirmed sociopath - there is no research showing that using the “F” word will somehow diffuse the situation. Again, Batts must have read Arotzarena’s quotes in the Wall Street Journal, rolled his eyes and thought, “WTF?” (But he would have the decency and professionalism not to say it!)
If there is one silver lining to this cloud, I hope that Batts’ departure is a wake up call. When the City Attorney resigns, calling the leadership “morally corrupt,” and when the police chief resigns shortly thereafter, accusing the leadership of tying his hands and not allowing him to do his job, citizens need to realize who is running this City, and that it will never get any better unless they are voted out of office and replaced with individuals with the courage and integrity to make public safety our number one priority, even if it means making a the criminal element, and the supporters of their “civil liberties,“ unhappy. Our leadership has catered to that element for far too long, and the proof is in the pudding - it ain’t working.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Please Support No On Measure I Campaign
Throughout my battles with the City on Measure Y, I occasionally got offers to help financially. Fortunately, I was able to support my efforts with my own resources. But now I am asking for your help. As you know, I am now part of Oaklanders Against The Parcel Tax. The proponents of this new irresponsible tax are well funded. Of course, they have the support of the majority of the Council, the Mayor, and most of the unions. But our effort is truly grassroots and we need all the help we can get. Please help support fiscal responsibility and help us defeat Measure I by sending your contributions to:
Oaklanders Against The Parcel Tax
360 22nd Street, #240, Oakland CA 94612
or oaklanderagainsttax@gmail.com to join our mailing list, and find out how you can donate or volunteer!
FPPC# 1341162
Oaklanders Against The Parcel Tax
360 22nd Street, #240, Oakland CA 94612
or oaklanderagainsttax@gmail.com to join our mailing list, and find out how you can donate or volunteer!
FPPC# 1341162
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Why I Oppose Measure I
In 2004, Oakland officials put Measure Y on the ballot. Jean Quan, then a City Councilmember, “guaranteed“ that Measure Y would give us 63 additional officers, for a total of 802, for 10 years. Quan was quoted by the Oakland Tribune at the time: “…the money raised by Measure Y will be used will be used to expand the department to 802 officers…All of us have to run for re-election – none of us would break such an obvious promise.“
Seven years and three lawsuits later, after having received approximately $120 million from the generous taxpayers who approved Measure Y, we have a total of 650 officers, and the force is shrinking every month. Obviously, they broke their promises. And this isn’t the only broken promise on Oakland’s record. Measure Q promised that all branch libraries would be open six days a week. Today, none of them are, but the tax is still being collected.
Now, City officials are once again asking Oakland’s already financially strapped taxpayers to approve yet another parcel tax. Measure I will cost Oakland homeowners approximately $400 each over the next five years, and renters will also be subject to the tax. To their credit, Oakland officials have learned something from the failures of Measure Y. They learned that they are incapable of keeping their promises. So this time around, they aren’t making any promises, which you will see if you read the actual ballot measure. Measure I is a $55 million blank check.
The propaganda in favor of the measure is business as usual, however. Knowing full well that political flyers aren’t legally binding, proponents are trying to convince voters that the approximately $11 million annual tax will help “restore” a whole panoply of services. But the actual language of Measure I does not provide for improvements in any public services. It does not include any provisions for additional police, improved roads, increased library hours, or additional park maintenance. It is a blank check, a general tax disguised as a special tax, with even less oversight and accountability than the failed Measure Y.
Proponents blame the “global recession” for Oakland’s financial problems. Except that this isn’t true. Oakland was claiming it was broke and needed Measure Y taxes back in 2004 - the height of the economic boom. Supporters are also trying to convince taxpayers that they need to do their “fair share” by paying more. Except that we already pay far more in property taxes than most other cities in California. In fact, on a $500,000 home, Oakland homeowners pay over $1700 more a year than those in San Francisco! And while most union concessions are for two or three years, this tax lasts for five, which is not “fair” either.
Supporters of the new tax are the same City officials who have mismanaged Oakland’s finances for years - the same leadership that Oakland’s own former City Attorney recently called “morally corrupt.” Measure I will do nothing to solve Oakland’s fiscal mess, or to address the fact that Oakland is over $450 million in debt for pension obligations it can’t afford. Oakland has no long-term plan on how to create fiscal sustainability, and this tax is nothing but a Band-aid on a gaping wound. Vote No on Measure I.
Seven years and three lawsuits later, after having received approximately $120 million from the generous taxpayers who approved Measure Y, we have a total of 650 officers, and the force is shrinking every month. Obviously, they broke their promises. And this isn’t the only broken promise on Oakland’s record. Measure Q promised that all branch libraries would be open six days a week. Today, none of them are, but the tax is still being collected.
Now, City officials are once again asking Oakland’s already financially strapped taxpayers to approve yet another parcel tax. Measure I will cost Oakland homeowners approximately $400 each over the next five years, and renters will also be subject to the tax. To their credit, Oakland officials have learned something from the failures of Measure Y. They learned that they are incapable of keeping their promises. So this time around, they aren’t making any promises, which you will see if you read the actual ballot measure. Measure I is a $55 million blank check.
The propaganda in favor of the measure is business as usual, however. Knowing full well that political flyers aren’t legally binding, proponents are trying to convince voters that the approximately $11 million annual tax will help “restore” a whole panoply of services. But the actual language of Measure I does not provide for improvements in any public services. It does not include any provisions for additional police, improved roads, increased library hours, or additional park maintenance. It is a blank check, a general tax disguised as a special tax, with even less oversight and accountability than the failed Measure Y.
Proponents blame the “global recession” for Oakland’s financial problems. Except that this isn’t true. Oakland was claiming it was broke and needed Measure Y taxes back in 2004 - the height of the economic boom. Supporters are also trying to convince taxpayers that they need to do their “fair share” by paying more. Except that we already pay far more in property taxes than most other cities in California. In fact, on a $500,000 home, Oakland homeowners pay over $1700 more a year than those in San Francisco! And while most union concessions are for two or three years, this tax lasts for five, which is not “fair” either.
Supporters of the new tax are the same City officials who have mismanaged Oakland’s finances for years - the same leadership that Oakland’s own former City Attorney recently called “morally corrupt.” Measure I will do nothing to solve Oakland’s fiscal mess, or to address the fact that Oakland is over $450 million in debt for pension obligations it can’t afford. Oakland has no long-term plan on how to create fiscal sustainability, and this tax is nothing but a Band-aid on a gaping wound. Vote No on Measure I.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Receipt of COPS Grant Highlights City Officials' Misleading Statements About Measure I
On Wednesday, City officials proudly announced receipt of federal funding that will help pay for 25 additional police officers. While this is good news, the fact that Mayor Quan is trying to parlay this into support for her misguided parcel tax, Measure I, is not.
In her recent newsletter, Quan claims that despite the multi-million dollar, three-year grant, financially strapped Oaklanders should still be asked to pony up $11 million a year for the next five years. She mentions the need for additional police academies at $4 million each. But nowhere in Measure I is there any reference to additional police academies. Nowhere in Measure I is there any reference to police staffing, or hiring of any additional police officers. The fact of the matter is that Measure I is just the City asking us for a blank check. Keep in mind that with this COPS grant the City is obligated to use those additional officers for specific types of duties (e.g. gang prevention and intervention). The feds have "strings" attached to the funds. But this new parcel tax? No strings whatsoever. Don't buy Quan's claims of new police academies. They are just as false as her claims under Measure Y that we would have 803 police officers from 2004 until 2014.
The fact of the matter is that the City has no plan at all for how to spend the money it is asking for. This is putting the cart before the horse. The City needs a workable plan, and needs to articulate exactly why it needs the money, and include real, meaningful guarantees for how those funds will be spent. Voting NO on Measure I sends a message to City Hall that long-term planning and accountability are critical to the long-term financial stability and success of Oakland. Vote NO!
In her recent newsletter, Quan claims that despite the multi-million dollar, three-year grant, financially strapped Oaklanders should still be asked to pony up $11 million a year for the next five years. She mentions the need for additional police academies at $4 million each. But nowhere in Measure I is there any reference to additional police academies. Nowhere in Measure I is there any reference to police staffing, or hiring of any additional police officers. The fact of the matter is that Measure I is just the City asking us for a blank check. Keep in mind that with this COPS grant the City is obligated to use those additional officers for specific types of duties (e.g. gang prevention and intervention). The feds have "strings" attached to the funds. But this new parcel tax? No strings whatsoever. Don't buy Quan's claims of new police academies. They are just as false as her claims under Measure Y that we would have 803 police officers from 2004 until 2014.
The fact of the matter is that the City has no plan at all for how to spend the money it is asking for. This is putting the cart before the horse. The City needs a workable plan, and needs to articulate exactly why it needs the money, and include real, meaningful guarantees for how those funds will be spent. Voting NO on Measure I sends a message to City Hall that long-term planning and accountability are critical to the long-term financial stability and success of Oakland. Vote NO!
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Green Party Urges Rejection of Measure I
Green Party Position on Measure Parcel Tax:
This is not a time to play games. This parcel tax
is a carefully crafted political game. Many if not most
of the participants in this game have little awareness
about how unreal and cruel the elements of the
game are, actually. To start with, if this parcel tax is
passed, residents of Oakland will be paying for five years but
the budget benefit to the City would end after about a
year. At that point all the departments and
programs that are supposed to be “restored” will
fall back into jeopardy – but residents will be
paying for one year’s service for four more
years. It goes without saying, that those with the least –
both in terms of resources and political voice -
will pay the most in either direct tax payments,
and/or increased prices and fees, and/or increased rent.
After the year of “restoration,” all residents
would be presented with service cuts since it is
unlikely that enough people could be fooled twice. What
the Mayor and most of the City Council is asking us to do
is not a solution that is worth the pain.
This tax emerges out of the divisions in
Oakland’s politics. The Council was not, even,
unanimous in its vote to put this on the ballot. The most
controversial Council Member, Ignacio De La
Fuente, objected to this being put on the ballot. If the
money from this tax could have been directed at police
services without any loss to OPD of resources
from the rest of the General Fund, he would have been the
leader of putting this on the ballot. This is another
wrinkle in the political debate that more
recently intensified over Mayor Brown’s Measure
FF-GG-HH-II, then again in Council Member Nadel’s
Measure R, and then again in Nadel’s and De La
Fuentes’ Measure Y. The lesson of the series being that
residents from the loudest communities want more cops but
they are unable to convince a minority of
residents to pay for more cops without a light sprinkling of
youth and, nominally, crime prevention programs. That is
why this parcel tax measure describes the
expenditures “restored” so generally.
For those who believe that we must do something
rather than nothing, let us tell you that that is not the
choice. Undeniable the City’s budget needs major
restructuring. When a majority of Oaklanders
simply want to hold on to what (they consider to be)
critical City services, those resources should be
internally available. That is the meaning of standing on your
own; what we expect of all Oakland residents so that we
do not pull each other down. Our livelihood
should be dependent on the efforts and policies of those
who love Oakland, not on what corporation we could entice
here, what stadium we can build, or on pushing
residents out of Oakland through gentrification. The
Mayor and the majority of the City Council lack the
boldness of leadership required to restructure
the City budget to meet the priority needs of Oakland
residents. They do not know how to do it and they will
not learn to do it in a year.
The Green Party believes that the Mayor and the
Council leadership deserve no further chances. Oakland
residents will have to make this happen the difficult
way. Vote NO on Measure I, the Parcel
Tax.
(From local Green Party web site: http://www.macleay4mayor.org/html/oakland_greens_meeting.html)
This is not a time to play games. This parcel tax
is a carefully crafted political game. Many if not most
of the participants in this game have little awareness
about how unreal and cruel the elements of the
game are, actually. To start with, if this parcel tax is
passed, residents of Oakland will be paying for five years but
the budget benefit to the City would end after about a
year. At that point all the departments and
programs that are supposed to be “restored” will
fall back into jeopardy – but residents will be
paying for one year’s service for four more
years. It goes without saying, that those with the least –
both in terms of resources and political voice -
will pay the most in either direct tax payments,
and/or increased prices and fees, and/or increased rent.
After the year of “restoration,” all residents
would be presented with service cuts since it is
unlikely that enough people could be fooled twice. What
the Mayor and most of the City Council is asking us to do
is not a solution that is worth the pain.
This tax emerges out of the divisions in
Oakland’s politics. The Council was not, even,
unanimous in its vote to put this on the ballot. The most
controversial Council Member, Ignacio De La
Fuente, objected to this being put on the ballot. If the
money from this tax could have been directed at police
services without any loss to OPD of resources
from the rest of the General Fund, he would have been the
leader of putting this on the ballot. This is another
wrinkle in the political debate that more
recently intensified over Mayor Brown’s Measure
FF-GG-HH-II, then again in Council Member Nadel’s
Measure R, and then again in Nadel’s and De La
Fuentes’ Measure Y. The lesson of the series being that
residents from the loudest communities want more cops but
they are unable to convince a minority of
residents to pay for more cops without a light sprinkling of
youth and, nominally, crime prevention programs. That is
why this parcel tax measure describes the
expenditures “restored” so generally.
For those who believe that we must do something
rather than nothing, let us tell you that that is not the
choice. Undeniable the City’s budget needs major
restructuring. When a majority of Oaklanders
simply want to hold on to what (they consider to be)
critical City services, those resources should be
internally available. That is the meaning of standing on your
own; what we expect of all Oakland residents so that we
do not pull each other down. Our livelihood
should be dependent on the efforts and policies of those
who love Oakland, not on what corporation we could entice
here, what stadium we can build, or on pushing
residents out of Oakland through gentrification. The
Mayor and the majority of the City Council lack the
boldness of leadership required to restructure
the City budget to meet the priority needs of Oakland
residents. They do not know how to do it and they will
not learn to do it in a year.
The Green Party believes that the Mayor and the
Council leadership deserve no further chances. Oakland
residents will have to make this happen the difficult
way. Vote NO on Measure I, the Parcel
Tax.
(From local Green Party web site: http://www.macleay4mayor.org/html/oakland_greens_meeting.html)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Oaklanders Against The Parcel Tax
Sorry for neglecting the blog. I've been busy helping put together Oaklanders Against The Parcel Tax, a group of community and NCPC leaders, homeowners, renters, public safety activists, and others working together to defeat the latest parcel tax proposal - Measure I.
Briefly, just to summarize where things are now: the Council approved putting the tax on the mail-in ballot, with the deadline for submitting votes being November 15, 2011 It's the same ballot proposal that I discussed in an earlier post (with the changes that resulted from my previous objections!). An $80 a year tax for homeowners, with a provision for a pass-through to renters, for five years, that promises absolutely nothing. No additional police, no improved services - nothing! And even less oversight than Measure Y has. I won't belabor all the many reasons to vote against the new tax here - just check out our new website at http://noonoaklandparceltax.blogspot.com, and pass on the link to any person or group you think might be interested. (You can also just click on the link on the right-hand column of this page).
Briefly, just to summarize where things are now: the Council approved putting the tax on the mail-in ballot, with the deadline for submitting votes being November 15, 2011 It's the same ballot proposal that I discussed in an earlier post (with the changes that resulted from my previous objections!). An $80 a year tax for homeowners, with a provision for a pass-through to renters, for five years, that promises absolutely nothing. No additional police, no improved services - nothing! And even less oversight than Measure Y has. I won't belabor all the many reasons to vote against the new tax here - just check out our new website at http://noonoaklandparceltax.blogspot.com, and pass on the link to any person or group you think might be interested. (You can also just click on the link on the right-hand column of this page).
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Why The Union Concessions Are Not a "Fair Share"
Tonight, the City Council approved the tentative agreements reached previously with all of the unions. Most council members applauded the unions’ willingness to make significant concessions to help balance the budget. Now, if I actually had copies of the agreements, I’d be able to give you a thorough analysis of the issues. Unfortunately, the City has consistently refused to provide copies. While they finally made available the staff reports analyzing the main terms of the agreements on Friday, the actual agreements are still secret. Outrageous. Particularly considering that, according to CM Schaaf, the staff summaries leave out some critical facts.
But even with just the summaries, I can tell you that most of the “concessions” are not significant, and are not long-term. For the most part, the concessions are temporary only. They only last for the duration of the agreements (i.e. two to four years). So they do nothing to address the long-term, structural problems with Oakland’s finances. Which means that in two to four years, we’ll be back here with the same financial woes. Actually, probably worse woes (as explained below).
Not only are they temporary, but these “concessions” aren’t really “concessions.” Rather, they are trades. For example, most of the MOUs call for furlough days. Which means that the employees will get lower overall pay (but not benefits) for a couple of years. But in exchange, the employees don’t have to work on those days. So their actual daily or hourly rate isn’t getting cut. And, of course, the real losers are the citizens, who don’t get the value of their services. And we don’t get anything in exchange for the worse service. On the contrary, we’re being asked to pay additional taxes for the privilege of suffering through ever worsening service cuts.
So let’s go through the summaries of each union contract in detail. The most publicized was the MOU with OPOA, the police union. They did make a long-term, significant and meaningful concession - a 9% contribution to their pension. That is not a temporary concession, and it will save the City between $6 and $8 million per year. In addition, the City negotiated a new two-tiered pension system. Existing employees continue to get 3% at 50; new hires, however, will have to work an additional 5 years to get the same pension benefit. The summary doesn’t tell us how much money that will save, however. And in exchange, the OPOA got some significant benefits - a no-layoff/no furlough guarantee. Now, I’m not opposed to no layoffs. After all, the force has already been decimated through the last layoff and attrition. But this protects existing officers, not citizens, because the City has already stated its intention to allow the force to continue to drop through attrition. I wish OPOA had negotiated an actual staffing requirement. And then there’s the 4% pay increase that the police will get in 2015. How is the City going to pay for that?
Next is the firefighters’ contract. They agreed to an 8.85% salary reduction for FY12-14. But this is not the same as the 9% contribution by OPOA. Why? Because the 9% contribution is permanent. This pay cut for firefighters is temporary. At the end of 2013/14, firefighters’ insane pay will go right back to where it was before. Why do I say their pay is insane? Because the last time they had a recruiting drive, before the recession hit, there were hordes of people applying for a smattering of jobs and it was a total zoo. Any job that has people camped out in sleeping bags for a chance at “winning the lottery” is clearly overpaid. http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-12-04/bay-area/17272555_1_firefighter-frank-ogawa-plaza-oakland-fire-department
Firefighters are also agreeing to a new two-tiered pension system, where new hires will have their pension based on the highest three year average. The City is not disclosing how much this will save the City. Lastly, firefighters will temporarily give up two shifts of vacation, and there will be rotating closures of two companies for two years only. According to CM Shaaf, one of the conditions of this concession was not included in the staff summary - i.e. that firefighters get guaranteed full staffing through 2017.
With respect to Local 1021, members are being asked to pay an additional 4% toward PERS. The staff summary does not provide whether this change is permanent or temporary. In addition, the MOU calls for a new two-tier retirement system. However, the main “concession” appears to be “mandatory leave without pay” days, i.e., furlough days. Not only will the employees not have to work on these days, but they also were able to negotiate numerous language/verbiage changes to their contract, including the grievance procedure, the contract out provisions, comp time, vacation time, sick leave and other provisions. All of these language changes were negotiated for the benefit of the union, not the City.
Local 21 also agreed to a two-tier retirement plan (with no specific savings described) and otherwise, agreed only to 12 furlough days. Local 1245 agreed only to 12 furlough days.
Real and meaningful concessions would have included an across the board pay cut (without a comparable cut in hours); a requirement that employees work a full workweek (40 hours versus 37.5 hours); and a cap on health benefit premiums. But the City got none of those things. I doubt they even asked.
“Fair share?” Well, to figure out if City employees are giving up their “fair share,” one would need to look at what their total compensation (benefits, salary, hours etc.) looks like compared to other public and private sector employees performing similar jobs in the Bay Area. And one would also need to look at what the City can actually afford. These are the only factors which, in my mind, would address what is “fair.” Calling a 9% savings, achieved through temporary savings, where the employees actually get to work less, a "significant concession," is absurd, particularly when taxpayers are being asked to pay more money for less services. Not to mention that the parcel tax proposal is for five years, and the employee concessions are mostly only for two years. What’s “fair” about that? But more on the proposed parcel tax later.
But even with just the summaries, I can tell you that most of the “concessions” are not significant, and are not long-term. For the most part, the concessions are temporary only. They only last for the duration of the agreements (i.e. two to four years). So they do nothing to address the long-term, structural problems with Oakland’s finances. Which means that in two to four years, we’ll be back here with the same financial woes. Actually, probably worse woes (as explained below).
Not only are they temporary, but these “concessions” aren’t really “concessions.” Rather, they are trades. For example, most of the MOUs call for furlough days. Which means that the employees will get lower overall pay (but not benefits) for a couple of years. But in exchange, the employees don’t have to work on those days. So their actual daily or hourly rate isn’t getting cut. And, of course, the real losers are the citizens, who don’t get the value of their services. And we don’t get anything in exchange for the worse service. On the contrary, we’re being asked to pay additional taxes for the privilege of suffering through ever worsening service cuts.
So let’s go through the summaries of each union contract in detail. The most publicized was the MOU with OPOA, the police union. They did make a long-term, significant and meaningful concession - a 9% contribution to their pension. That is not a temporary concession, and it will save the City between $6 and $8 million per year. In addition, the City negotiated a new two-tiered pension system. Existing employees continue to get 3% at 50; new hires, however, will have to work an additional 5 years to get the same pension benefit. The summary doesn’t tell us how much money that will save, however. And in exchange, the OPOA got some significant benefits - a no-layoff/no furlough guarantee. Now, I’m not opposed to no layoffs. After all, the force has already been decimated through the last layoff and attrition. But this protects existing officers, not citizens, because the City has already stated its intention to allow the force to continue to drop through attrition. I wish OPOA had negotiated an actual staffing requirement. And then there’s the 4% pay increase that the police will get in 2015. How is the City going to pay for that?
Next is the firefighters’ contract. They agreed to an 8.85% salary reduction for FY12-14. But this is not the same as the 9% contribution by OPOA. Why? Because the 9% contribution is permanent. This pay cut for firefighters is temporary. At the end of 2013/14, firefighters’ insane pay will go right back to where it was before. Why do I say their pay is insane? Because the last time they had a recruiting drive, before the recession hit, there were hordes of people applying for a smattering of jobs and it was a total zoo. Any job that has people camped out in sleeping bags for a chance at “winning the lottery” is clearly overpaid. http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-12-04/bay-area/17272555_1_firefighter-frank-ogawa-plaza-oakland-fire-department
Firefighters are also agreeing to a new two-tiered pension system, where new hires will have their pension based on the highest three year average. The City is not disclosing how much this will save the City. Lastly, firefighters will temporarily give up two shifts of vacation, and there will be rotating closures of two companies for two years only. According to CM Shaaf, one of the conditions of this concession was not included in the staff summary - i.e. that firefighters get guaranteed full staffing through 2017.
With respect to Local 1021, members are being asked to pay an additional 4% toward PERS. The staff summary does not provide whether this change is permanent or temporary. In addition, the MOU calls for a new two-tier retirement system. However, the main “concession” appears to be “mandatory leave without pay” days, i.e., furlough days. Not only will the employees not have to work on these days, but they also were able to negotiate numerous language/verbiage changes to their contract, including the grievance procedure, the contract out provisions, comp time, vacation time, sick leave and other provisions. All of these language changes were negotiated for the benefit of the union, not the City.
Local 21 also agreed to a two-tier retirement plan (with no specific savings described) and otherwise, agreed only to 12 furlough days. Local 1245 agreed only to 12 furlough days.
Real and meaningful concessions would have included an across the board pay cut (without a comparable cut in hours); a requirement that employees work a full workweek (40 hours versus 37.5 hours); and a cap on health benefit premiums. But the City got none of those things. I doubt they even asked.
“Fair share?” Well, to figure out if City employees are giving up their “fair share,” one would need to look at what their total compensation (benefits, salary, hours etc.) looks like compared to other public and private sector employees performing similar jobs in the Bay Area. And one would also need to look at what the City can actually afford. These are the only factors which, in my mind, would address what is “fair.” Calling a 9% savings, achieved through temporary savings, where the employees actually get to work less, a "significant concession," is absurd, particularly when taxpayers are being asked to pay more money for less services. Not to mention that the parcel tax proposal is for five years, and the employee concessions are mostly only for two years. What’s “fair” about that? But more on the proposed parcel tax later.
Monday, June 13, 2011
How Oakland Won - The Charlie Sheen Way
After three and half years of litigation against the City of Oakland over Measure Y, I have decided not to appeal the latest decision. As you may recall, the judge issued a tentative ruling in favor of the City on all causes of action. The lead claim I made was that the City deliberately failed to fund police academies, and continued to collect Measure Y taxes, prior to the Measure BB amendment. I also alleged that the City failed to staff the Measure Y funded crime reduction team positions, and deployed Measure Y funded Problem Solving Officers away from their beats for months at a time. Also included were claims that the City repeatedly failed to respond to public records requests in a timely manner, and that the Executive Director of the Public Ethics Commission failed to process my complaint within the timelines mandated by the PEC’s own internal regulations.
Notably, the City never disputed the main facts. They pretty much had to admit they didn’t properly fund police academies. They couldn’t deny that the size of the police force plummeted, and that this was a deliberate decision designed to save money. Their defense was that the language of Measure Y didn’t specifically require funding for academies, never mind that without them, staffing numbers couldn’t be maintained.
Nor could they deny that the CRT and PSO positions weren’t filled. Their defense: the positions were filled by the time we went to trial. They also could not deny that they failed to comply with the PRA. Their defense: I submitted a lot of requests, and they gave me a lot of documents, which I eventually got, so I should just quit griping. With respect to the PEC issue, they claimed that the PEC eventually did hear my complaint, and any violations of the internal regulations were “de minimus.” I don’t see how a six month delay is “de minimus,” but anyway, for whatever reason, the judge, without specifically addressing that the facts were overwhelmingly in my favor, and that the intent of the statutes was overwhelmingly in my favor, still ruled against me.
I could appeal. But then I have to consider, what for? A $90 tax refund? By the time we got a decision, Measure Y would be almost expired anyway. The lost services from the officers we were promised, but never got, can never be recovered. The lost lives, lost security, and lost property due to these violations, can never be recovered. Also, the costs to me, in terms of my time and my money, have been enormous. I have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars of my own money, and at some point, I just have to cut my losses.
Not that my battles have been entirely in vain. The PEC has been holding hearings on improving access to public records, and I am hopeful that by the end of the year, new policies and procedures will be in place to prevent the types of violations I was seeing on a regular basis. The City has had to conduct mandatory audits as a result of my first lawsuit. I am also hopeful that my litigation, and the publicity surrounding it, has helped inform Oakland residents about the numerous past violations and broken promises, and will serve as an incentive for them to reject the next parcel tax coming down the pike, which in turn should help force the City into making meaningful, structural changes to address the budget crisis. I also hope that the thousands of hours the City has had to spend in attorney and employee time will also make them think twice before violating parcel tax measures in the future.
And for the record, I know I’m right, the court’s decision notwithstanding. The fact that the Pope rejected the notion that the earth revolved around the sun did not make Galileo or Copernicus wrong. They were vindicated by history in the end. Can the City of Oakland claim “#winning”? Pretty much the same way Charlie Sheen can. The proof is in the pudding. If winning means a police force half the size of what it should be, a skyrocketing murder rate, decimated community policing, looming bankruptcy, a loss of trust from the electorate, and likely rejection of any future parcel tax measures, then yes, they can claim victory. But I don’t call that victory. And what does it say when the City Attorney resigns in the middle of his term, calling City leadership “morally corrupt?”
In addition to quoting this year’s most notorious "#winning" loser, I’ll conclude with two additional quotations that came to mind as I temporarily lay down my sword:
“I would rather fail in a cause that will ultimately triumph than to triumph in a cause that will ultimately fail.” - Woodrow Wilson
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
Notably, the City never disputed the main facts. They pretty much had to admit they didn’t properly fund police academies. They couldn’t deny that the size of the police force plummeted, and that this was a deliberate decision designed to save money. Their defense was that the language of Measure Y didn’t specifically require funding for academies, never mind that without them, staffing numbers couldn’t be maintained.
Nor could they deny that the CRT and PSO positions weren’t filled. Their defense: the positions were filled by the time we went to trial. They also could not deny that they failed to comply with the PRA. Their defense: I submitted a lot of requests, and they gave me a lot of documents, which I eventually got, so I should just quit griping. With respect to the PEC issue, they claimed that the PEC eventually did hear my complaint, and any violations of the internal regulations were “de minimus.” I don’t see how a six month delay is “de minimus,” but anyway, for whatever reason, the judge, without specifically addressing that the facts were overwhelmingly in my favor, and that the intent of the statutes was overwhelmingly in my favor, still ruled against me.
I could appeal. But then I have to consider, what for? A $90 tax refund? By the time we got a decision, Measure Y would be almost expired anyway. The lost services from the officers we were promised, but never got, can never be recovered. The lost lives, lost security, and lost property due to these violations, can never be recovered. Also, the costs to me, in terms of my time and my money, have been enormous. I have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars of my own money, and at some point, I just have to cut my losses.
Not that my battles have been entirely in vain. The PEC has been holding hearings on improving access to public records, and I am hopeful that by the end of the year, new policies and procedures will be in place to prevent the types of violations I was seeing on a regular basis. The City has had to conduct mandatory audits as a result of my first lawsuit. I am also hopeful that my litigation, and the publicity surrounding it, has helped inform Oakland residents about the numerous past violations and broken promises, and will serve as an incentive for them to reject the next parcel tax coming down the pike, which in turn should help force the City into making meaningful, structural changes to address the budget crisis. I also hope that the thousands of hours the City has had to spend in attorney and employee time will also make them think twice before violating parcel tax measures in the future.
And for the record, I know I’m right, the court’s decision notwithstanding. The fact that the Pope rejected the notion that the earth revolved around the sun did not make Galileo or Copernicus wrong. They were vindicated by history in the end. Can the City of Oakland claim “#winning”? Pretty much the same way Charlie Sheen can. The proof is in the pudding. If winning means a police force half the size of what it should be, a skyrocketing murder rate, decimated community policing, looming bankruptcy, a loss of trust from the electorate, and likely rejection of any future parcel tax measures, then yes, they can claim victory. But I don’t call that victory. And what does it say when the City Attorney resigns in the middle of his term, calling City leadership “morally corrupt?”
In addition to quoting this year’s most notorious "#winning" loser, I’ll conclude with two additional quotations that came to mind as I temporarily lay down my sword:
“I would rather fail in a cause that will ultimately triumph than to triumph in a cause that will ultimately fail.” - Woodrow Wilson
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
She's Baa-aaack
Remember my post a couple of weeks ago comparing the parcel tax proposal to Glenn Close’s character in “Fatal Attraction?” Well, she’s coming at us again with the meat cleaver. Put it tentatively on your calendar for June 21 (first reading) and July 5 (final action).
Lost among all the brouhaha over the gang injunction hearing at Tuesday night’s (Wednesday morning’s) meeting was the fact that the council once again took up the subject of scheduling a special election to vote on the proposed parcel tax. Given the wee hours of the morning, there wasn’t extensive discussion of the matter, but the Council did agree to hold two meetings to discuss whether to hold a special election to consider the $80 tax. The fact that the special election would cost around $800,000 was brought up. Also mentioned was the fact that the election (if any) would likely be scheduled in November.
As I noted earlier, the budget needs to be approved by the end of July. So anybody with half a brain would realize that a parcel tax election in November is not going prevent whatever cuts need to be made to balance the budget between now and the end of July. So what exactly is the urgency for a special election? Never mind the fact that even if the tax were to pass (still unlikely), the tax wouldn’t be collected until the end of 2012? These finer points are obviously lost on the few speakers who showed up to support the concept - people who have obviously never met a tax that they didn’t want to pay. No speakers showed up to argue the other side - but they’re probably all too smart to stay up till 2 a.m.
Speaking of smart people, John Russo knows when to make his exit. Check out this video interview with him by Zennie Abraham. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=89211>a=commentslistpos#commentslistpos
He goes into a fair amount of detail about why he’s leaving. It’s because he has fundamental moral differences with the way the leadership of Oakland is dealing with two big issues - public safety and the budget. He explains that because of his personal feelings and opinions, he’s the wrong person for the job. And he’s right. A client deserves “zealous advocacy.” And when your client is an incompetent, unscrupulous scumbag, and you have moral differences with that, you need to tell them to find another lawyer. (As I myself told him during our most recent chat, "you might as well be representing Phillip Morris!") He also goes into a fair amount of detail about a subject I covered in my last post (about how much Oakland’s debt is already costing homeowners) and how much it is likely to cost us in the future, about how Oakland’s financial “plans” are leading us very clearly down the path to bankruptcy.
So I ask you, when the sitting City Attorney publicly announces he’s quitting, in the middle of his term, because he thinks the City is so financially irresponsible that he can barely find the words to describe it, is this the kind of cause you want to throw more money at in the form of a parcel tax? Or will you join me in my continued fight to demand fiscal responsibility?
Lost among all the brouhaha over the gang injunction hearing at Tuesday night’s (Wednesday morning’s) meeting was the fact that the council once again took up the subject of scheduling a special election to vote on the proposed parcel tax. Given the wee hours of the morning, there wasn’t extensive discussion of the matter, but the Council did agree to hold two meetings to discuss whether to hold a special election to consider the $80 tax. The fact that the special election would cost around $800,000 was brought up. Also mentioned was the fact that the election (if any) would likely be scheduled in November.
As I noted earlier, the budget needs to be approved by the end of July. So anybody with half a brain would realize that a parcel tax election in November is not going prevent whatever cuts need to be made to balance the budget between now and the end of July. So what exactly is the urgency for a special election? Never mind the fact that even if the tax were to pass (still unlikely), the tax wouldn’t be collected until the end of 2012? These finer points are obviously lost on the few speakers who showed up to support the concept - people who have obviously never met a tax that they didn’t want to pay. No speakers showed up to argue the other side - but they’re probably all too smart to stay up till 2 a.m.
Speaking of smart people, John Russo knows when to make his exit. Check out this video interview with him by Zennie Abraham. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=89211>a=commentslistpos#commentslistpos
He goes into a fair amount of detail about why he’s leaving. It’s because he has fundamental moral differences with the way the leadership of Oakland is dealing with two big issues - public safety and the budget. He explains that because of his personal feelings and opinions, he’s the wrong person for the job. And he’s right. A client deserves “zealous advocacy.” And when your client is an incompetent, unscrupulous scumbag, and you have moral differences with that, you need to tell them to find another lawyer. (As I myself told him during our most recent chat, "you might as well be representing Phillip Morris!") He also goes into a fair amount of detail about a subject I covered in my last post (about how much Oakland’s debt is already costing homeowners) and how much it is likely to cost us in the future, about how Oakland’s financial “plans” are leading us very clearly down the path to bankruptcy.
So I ask you, when the sitting City Attorney publicly announces he’s quitting, in the middle of his term, because he thinks the City is so financially irresponsible that he can barely find the words to describe it, is this the kind of cause you want to throw more money at in the form of a parcel tax? Or will you join me in my continued fight to demand fiscal responsibility?
Monday, May 9, 2011
Quan's Budget Option C Gets An F
At last week’s Council meeting, Quan introduced three alternative budget proposals. http://www.abetteroakland.com/three-budgets-for-oakland/2011-04-29. The one she was pushing for was, of course, Plan C, the one that called for yet another parcel tax. For anybody tempted to actually download and read the budget proposal, save yourself the trouble. It is garbage. First of all, the majority of the documentation is just filler. I mean, does the Council really need to know the history of Oakland going back to the Stone Age? You think I’m joking, but it’s in there. Looking at this budget proposal, you’d really think our politicians hadn’t evolved much since cave man days.
Notably, the proposals fail to contain any meaningful information about what is necessary to balance the budget, the procedures necessary to implement the various cuts and revenue generators, the relevant timelines for all of this, and how likely or feasible these things are to happen between now and July 1. For example, Quan proposes straight cuts to various departments. How are the departments supposed to cut their budgets, when they’ve already been severely cut? Layoffs aren’t conducted at the department level. Neither are pay cuts. All of these things require action at the top, not the department level.
Completely lacking from the proposals is any discussion of what is really necessary to balancing the budget - long term, structural changes to public employee compensation, including pensions. Short-term fixes, like furlough days, obviously don’t address any long-term problems. And, they result in lost services to the residents. We need better services (or at least the same services) for less money, and the only way we can do that, long term, is with compensation cuts. And compensation cuts generally require negotiations with the unions, and negotiations with the unions take a long time. Shouldn’t the proposals include a detailed discussion of what proposals for cuts have been made to the unions, where we are in those discussions, and how likely those discussions are to be resolved by July 1? Yes, but there is none. In fact, the unions are complaining that they’ve never even heard of Quan’s proposals!
As for the parcel tax, the proposals should include a detailed discussion of the timing of tax collection. Because it just won’t work, no matter what happens. Even if the Council were to approve a parcel tax to go on a special election ballot, that couldn’t happen for at least another three months, by law, which puts us into mid-August. That means there is no way that the tax could be included on the November tax bills. Which means that the City would have to borrow around $11 million to get us to next November. What is that going to cost? And then homeowners would be saddled with a double tax bill in 2012. You’ll get a taste of what that feels like this coming November, when you see a double tax bill for Measure Y, thanks to BB passing last November. Shouldn’t there be a discussion about all of this in the proposals? Yes, but it’s not there either.
Now, the unions are already whining about how everybody has to pitch in to help the City out, and it’s not fair to just stick them with cuts, and how the taxpayers need to help carry the load by paying more in taxes. Just for kicks, I decided to figure out how much extra we are already paying, compared to our neighboring cities. Thanks to Proposition 13, the base tax rate is not allowed to exceed 1% of the assessed value of the home. Of course, it can and does typically exceed that based on how much debt the municipality takes on, but usually not by a huge amount. Except in Oakland, where the base rate is a whopping 1.4086%. Here’s the breakdown, from highest to lowest, and how those differences can increase your actual annual property tax on a $500,000 home:
Oakland - 1.4086% Actual tax: $7043
Albany - 1.3975% Actual tax: $6985
Berkeley - 1.2555% Actual tax: $6277
Piedmont - 1.1931% Actual tax: $5965
Alameda - 1.1376% Actual tax: $5688
San Leandro 1.1223% Actual tax: $5611
Hayward - 1.0892% Actual tax: $5446
So, for the same house, Oaklanders would essentially be paying around $1500 extra annually in taxes, compared to neighboring cities, on a modest home. For more expensive homes, the disparity is obviously much greater.
Now, this does not take into account the special assessments that public entities can tack on as well, like my beloved Measure Y, or the new tax being proposed. Oakland does not come in first place for the special assessments. Here’s another chart showing that information:
Oakland - 1.4086% + $752 Actual tax: $7795 (including Measure Y)
Albany - 1.3975% + $1726 Actual tax: $8711
Berkeley - 1.2555% + $1663 Actual tax: $7940
Piedmont - 1.1931% + $3090 Actual tax: $9055
Alameda - 1.1376% + $1072 Actual tax: $6760
San Leandro 1.1223% + $525 Actual tax: $6136
Hayward - 1.0892% + $653 Actual tax: $6099
So, it is true that Berkeley, Piedmont and Albany would have higher total property taxes (on a $500,000 home) compared to Oakland. But keep in mind, you’re not going to find many homes in those cities in those price ranges. In Piedmont, practically none. And the high special taxes are due almost entirely to the assessments for the schools, which are significantly better than Oakland schools. Piedmont residents pay over $2000 a year just in special taxes to support their schools. And it shows.
(By the way, Long Beach, to which Oakland is frequently compared, has a tax rate of 1.114851%. To compare other Los Angeles County cities, check out this fabulous L.A. Times chart. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/bell/la-me-city-property-tax-table,0,5895218.htmlstory
None of them even come close to Oakland's tax rates, except...Bell!)
So, to summarize, this new parcel tax would not be able to be collected until November, 2012, sinking us deeper into debt. Oakland’s excessive debt is already costing homeowners at least an extra $1500 a year in taxes already. The new parcel tax makes no promises about better services, like increased police staffing levels. In fact, the City is pretty much admitting that even with the new tax, the level of services is going to go down even more. By the time the budget needs to be passed, on July 1, no election will have been held, so adopting Proposal C would basically rely on hope and prayers. Employee unions have made no meaningful concessions as of yet, and we have received no progress report on where things are at in that department.
Plan C gets an F.
Notably, the proposals fail to contain any meaningful information about what is necessary to balance the budget, the procedures necessary to implement the various cuts and revenue generators, the relevant timelines for all of this, and how likely or feasible these things are to happen between now and July 1. For example, Quan proposes straight cuts to various departments. How are the departments supposed to cut their budgets, when they’ve already been severely cut? Layoffs aren’t conducted at the department level. Neither are pay cuts. All of these things require action at the top, not the department level.
Completely lacking from the proposals is any discussion of what is really necessary to balancing the budget - long term, structural changes to public employee compensation, including pensions. Short-term fixes, like furlough days, obviously don’t address any long-term problems. And, they result in lost services to the residents. We need better services (or at least the same services) for less money, and the only way we can do that, long term, is with compensation cuts. And compensation cuts generally require negotiations with the unions, and negotiations with the unions take a long time. Shouldn’t the proposals include a detailed discussion of what proposals for cuts have been made to the unions, where we are in those discussions, and how likely those discussions are to be resolved by July 1? Yes, but there is none. In fact, the unions are complaining that they’ve never even heard of Quan’s proposals!
As for the parcel tax, the proposals should include a detailed discussion of the timing of tax collection. Because it just won’t work, no matter what happens. Even if the Council were to approve a parcel tax to go on a special election ballot, that couldn’t happen for at least another three months, by law, which puts us into mid-August. That means there is no way that the tax could be included on the November tax bills. Which means that the City would have to borrow around $11 million to get us to next November. What is that going to cost? And then homeowners would be saddled with a double tax bill in 2012. You’ll get a taste of what that feels like this coming November, when you see a double tax bill for Measure Y, thanks to BB passing last November. Shouldn’t there be a discussion about all of this in the proposals? Yes, but it’s not there either.
Now, the unions are already whining about how everybody has to pitch in to help the City out, and it’s not fair to just stick them with cuts, and how the taxpayers need to help carry the load by paying more in taxes. Just for kicks, I decided to figure out how much extra we are already paying, compared to our neighboring cities. Thanks to Proposition 13, the base tax rate is not allowed to exceed 1% of the assessed value of the home. Of course, it can and does typically exceed that based on how much debt the municipality takes on, but usually not by a huge amount. Except in Oakland, where the base rate is a whopping 1.4086%. Here’s the breakdown, from highest to lowest, and how those differences can increase your actual annual property tax on a $500,000 home:
Oakland - 1.4086% Actual tax: $7043
Albany - 1.3975% Actual tax: $6985
Berkeley - 1.2555% Actual tax: $6277
Piedmont - 1.1931% Actual tax: $5965
Alameda - 1.1376% Actual tax: $5688
San Leandro 1.1223% Actual tax: $5611
Hayward - 1.0892% Actual tax: $5446
So, for the same house, Oaklanders would essentially be paying around $1500 extra annually in taxes, compared to neighboring cities, on a modest home. For more expensive homes, the disparity is obviously much greater.
Now, this does not take into account the special assessments that public entities can tack on as well, like my beloved Measure Y, or the new tax being proposed. Oakland does not come in first place for the special assessments. Here’s another chart showing that information:
Oakland - 1.4086% + $752 Actual tax: $7795 (including Measure Y)
Albany - 1.3975% + $1726 Actual tax: $8711
Berkeley - 1.2555% + $1663 Actual tax: $7940
Piedmont - 1.1931% + $3090 Actual tax: $9055
Alameda - 1.1376% + $1072 Actual tax: $6760
San Leandro 1.1223% + $525 Actual tax: $6136
Hayward - 1.0892% + $653 Actual tax: $6099
So, it is true that Berkeley, Piedmont and Albany would have higher total property taxes (on a $500,000 home) compared to Oakland. But keep in mind, you’re not going to find many homes in those cities in those price ranges. In Piedmont, practically none. And the high special taxes are due almost entirely to the assessments for the schools, which are significantly better than Oakland schools. Piedmont residents pay over $2000 a year just in special taxes to support their schools. And it shows.
(By the way, Long Beach, to which Oakland is frequently compared, has a tax rate of 1.114851%. To compare other Los Angeles County cities, check out this fabulous L.A. Times chart. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/bell/la-me-city-property-tax-table,0,5895218.htmlstory
None of them even come close to Oakland's tax rates, except...Bell!)
So, to summarize, this new parcel tax would not be able to be collected until November, 2012, sinking us deeper into debt. Oakland’s excessive debt is already costing homeowners at least an extra $1500 a year in taxes already. The new parcel tax makes no promises about better services, like increased police staffing levels. In fact, the City is pretty much admitting that even with the new tax, the level of services is going to go down even more. By the time the budget needs to be passed, on July 1, no election will have been held, so adopting Proposal C would basically rely on hope and prayers. Employee unions have made no meaningful concessions as of yet, and we have received no progress report on where things are at in that department.
Plan C gets an F.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Parcel Tax And Glenn Close
Talk about not being able to get anything right! First, the City drafts a proposed new parcel tax that is in blatant violation of multiple laws. I addressed those numerous violations in a previous post, and sent an email to the entire Council, as well as the City Attorney’s office, outlining all of the defects, prior to the Council meeting. Throughout that meeting, the deputy City Attorney was scrambling around making last minute changes, and by the end of the meeting, they had taken all of my legal advice, and it was barely legal. The Council, knowing full well that a June special election was still up in the air, and that the cost of the special election would be close to $1 million, decided to put forth the new parcel tax proposal only if Jerry Brown got that June election to happen. Last week, it was clear that the special election wasn’t going to happen, so I was hoping the parcel tax would be DOA.
It was resurrected at the last minute earlier this week. Only hours before the meeting, I looked at the agenda and saw that Quan was pushing for an election by mail, to be held on July 12. Given the short notice, I wasn’t able to make it the meeting, but fortunately, three council members prevented the discussion from even getting off the ground, because doing so would have violated Oakland’s own Sunshine Act. See, under Oakland’s own rules, for regularly scheduled meetings, the materials need to be available at least 10 days in advance, unless 2/3 of the Council finds there to be some sort of emergency. As Libby Schaaf pointed out, the Council was well aware over a month ago that the June special election might not happen, so this whole “let’s do an election by mail only in July” was not an emergency. Nancy Nadel called this a “tyranny of the minority.” Quan called it “parliamentary procedure.” (She might want to check the dictionary on what “parliamentary procedure” means). In the end, reason prevailed, and the Council moved on.
But Quan just won’t let that parcel tax die. It’s like Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.” Just when you think she’s dead, she jumps out of the bathtub with a cleaver! But unlike Michael Douglas, I knew there was a possibility that she might do just that. So I checked the website periodically today, for any signs of a newly special noticed meeting, and there was none. By around 3:30, I figured the issue was dead.
But then I saw a post by Bruce Nye of Make Oakland Better Now that a meeting had been posted, but no agenda, and that the City had missed the 4 p.m. deadline. So I started watching to see if and when the agenda got posted. It made it up by somewhere between 4:45 and 4:50. Too late. Why? Because the meeting was noticed for 4:00 p.m., and under the City’s Sunshine Ordinance, 48 hours is required. They blew it again! Fortunately, somebody must have realized that two botched meeting notices would just be too embarrassing (or maybe they realized the 4:00 p.m. meeting time on Friday would interfere with their Happy Hour - not to mention everybody else’s!) So apparently the meeting was canceled shortly thereafter. Hallelujah! Hopefully Glenn Close will be declared officially dead, and we won’t have to worry about any more boiled bunnies.
It was resurrected at the last minute earlier this week. Only hours before the meeting, I looked at the agenda and saw that Quan was pushing for an election by mail, to be held on July 12. Given the short notice, I wasn’t able to make it the meeting, but fortunately, three council members prevented the discussion from even getting off the ground, because doing so would have violated Oakland’s own Sunshine Act. See, under Oakland’s own rules, for regularly scheduled meetings, the materials need to be available at least 10 days in advance, unless 2/3 of the Council finds there to be some sort of emergency. As Libby Schaaf pointed out, the Council was well aware over a month ago that the June special election might not happen, so this whole “let’s do an election by mail only in July” was not an emergency. Nancy Nadel called this a “tyranny of the minority.” Quan called it “parliamentary procedure.” (She might want to check the dictionary on what “parliamentary procedure” means). In the end, reason prevailed, and the Council moved on.
But Quan just won’t let that parcel tax die. It’s like Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.” Just when you think she’s dead, she jumps out of the bathtub with a cleaver! But unlike Michael Douglas, I knew there was a possibility that she might do just that. So I checked the website periodically today, for any signs of a newly special noticed meeting, and there was none. By around 3:30, I figured the issue was dead.
But then I saw a post by Bruce Nye of Make Oakland Better Now that a meeting had been posted, but no agenda, and that the City had missed the 4 p.m. deadline. So I started watching to see if and when the agenda got posted. It made it up by somewhere between 4:45 and 4:50. Too late. Why? Because the meeting was noticed for 4:00 p.m., and under the City’s Sunshine Ordinance, 48 hours is required. They blew it again! Fortunately, somebody must have realized that two botched meeting notices would just be too embarrassing (or maybe they realized the 4:00 p.m. meeting time on Friday would interfere with their Happy Hour - not to mention everybody else’s!) So apparently the meeting was canceled shortly thereafter. Hallelujah! Hopefully Glenn Close will be declared officially dead, and we won’t have to worry about any more boiled bunnies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
