Getting From Measure Y to Measure Z - Reduce Accountability, Increase Taxes. Who Wouldn’t Vote For That?

Thursday morning at 10:00 a.m., a time most responsible working adults will not be able to attend, our illustrious City Council is meeting once again to discuss how to fix the budget and fill the $18 million hole. You can read the brilliant new proposals here. http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/23790.pdf

Of particular note is the astute observation: “New ongoing revenues are the only way to cover the operating deficit on [sic] an ongoing way. We need to discuss the practicality of new ballot measures to bring in new revenue or to change how current measures are structured. These include (I) modifying Measure Y to remove the obligation to fund 739 officers with non-Measure Y funds; (ii) new parcel taxes….”

Are they kidding? Reduce accountability, and raise taxes? For those of you that have been following this issue, the City initially asserted that unless the police force was staffed a minimum of 739, Measure Y taxes could not be collected. You can read this spurious claim on the City’s own website (!!) here.

http://measurey.org/index.php?page=measure-y-faq

When sued initially by Charlie Pine, and then by me, the City claimed that all this language meant was that they had to “appropriate” money for the officers; they didn’t actually have to employ them. Yeah, right. In any event, now the City hasn’t even done that, which has resulted in the police force dropping like a rock, and me threatening a second lawsuit. So the City’s answer is to get rid of this pesky accountability language? I have one thing to say to you City officials - don’t even THINK about it!

We have brand a new police chief who seems very promising. He’s been going all over town giving speeches on how “broken” the police department is, and how his resources are just stretched too thin, and how the response times are totally unacceptable, and how public safety is an economic driver. And the City has the gall to propose that we REDUCE the police force? Are they INSANE?

As for any new parcel taxes - did they not hear the City Council say that now is not the time for such things? People are broke, out of work, and some on the brink of foreclosure. Like 66% of them would want to increase their taxes? Particularly in light of how the City failed so miserably to honor its promises under Measure Y? I think not.

As for long term solutions, increasing revenues is not the only answer. How about reducing costs? The myopic City officials always seem to assume that this means cutting services. How about improving services? How about making people work the same number of hours, for less pay or less benefits? (Like in the “real world.”) How about firing people when they’re incompetent? How about setting a tone that people who get paid a salary actually have to come to work and get stuff done? Are these such radical concepts?

I am willing to consider restructuring Measure Y, and would actively support such a proposal if it included some critical components. First, it would have to guarantee that we get 10 years of staffing at 803, for 10 years of taxes, at the same amount, like what we were promised under Measure Y. It would also have to guarantee actual staffing at 803, or pretty darn close, not just some illusory “budget” for officers. It would have to guarantee that we have an officer in each beat, like we were promised under Measure Y. As to what those officers would do, and other details, I’m willing to listen to suggestions from the Chief. And as to how the City could pay for this, I think there could be adequate funding by reprioritizing and giving the lion’s share of the $20 million to the police, and a lot less towards violence prevention. Those programs existed prior to Measure Y and will continue to exist without Measure Y funding.

I have a settlement conference scheduled for January 7, 2010, where I hope to be able to discuss my ideas with City officials in more detail. But if raising taxes and reducing accountability is more their bag, we’ve got a long, litigious road ahead.