So while I was on vacation I was (unfortunately) following the news that the City is still actually considering the possibility of yet another parcel tax. To say that I vehemently oppose the idea is, of course, a dramatic understatement. As I mentioned in my last post, putting something on the ballot that would restructure Measure Y in such a way as to allocate additional funds to police, and correct the previous abuses, to help settle my previous suit, is something I could support. Just so long as taxpayers wouldn’t have to pay another dime! Currently, Measure Y requires that 40% of the funds generated be spent on “violence prevention” programs. That’s over $8 million a year, that, with a restructuring of Measure Y (which would require an election and a 2/3 approval) could be redirected to police services and toward funding implementation of the actual terms of Measure Y, i.e. 10 years of full staffing at the promised authorized strength of 803, to settle the lawsuit. Now, I’m not saying those violence prevention programs are a total waste. Maybe they’re not. But I’m skeptical. More importantly, our priority should be on the police. People are being killed, raped, and robbed on the streets in alarming numbers. The people committing these crimes need to be arrested and brought to justice.
Preventing the young children from becoming violent criminals may or may not be possible with violence prevention programs, but that is just a luxury we cannot afford right now. Moreover, that job belongs primarily with parents, secondarily with the schools. It really is not a “core function” of the City to be trying to stop kids from joining gangs and dealing drugs with these sorts of programs. Moreover, the programs currently being funded by Measure Y already existed before Measure Y, and will continue to be funded. Kids First and its legacy already guarantee the same organizations and similar organizations around $10 million annually. So it’s not like those programs are going away. But of course, another option would be to do away with both the $8 million of Measure Y funding, and the $10 million of Kids First funding, and that would give the City an extra $18 million annually that it could redirect toward police services. So again, my point is, no need for another parcel tax. Other reasons are outlined below:
1. The Failure of Measure Y
Measure Y costs property owners over $90.00 a year currently. We were promised an additional 63 officers, one for each beat, plus a few more, and minimum staffing of 803 for the 10 years of Measure Y. We paid our taxes; the City did not deliver. Need I say more? Okay, I’ll say more. Not only did they not staff the positions they promised, they totally misused Measure Y funds so badly that Judge Roesch called the City’s violations “flagrant” and their arguments justifying the misuse of funds “sophistry.” And the City promised “accountability” in the form of annual audits and an “oversight committee.” The audits never happened. The “oversight committee” is a joke. If that committee had been doing their job, no lawsuit would have ever been necessary. So how can the City justify yet another parcel tax? Would they promise us an extra 100 officers for an extra $20 a year? I doubt it. Even if they did, they’ve totally lost their credibility, so why would we believe them?
2. The Examples of Waste In This City Are An Embarrassment
So some City officials, and maybe a few other citizens who are either very ignorant or too rich to care, want us all to pay yet more money in taxes while Mayor Dellums apparently does virtually nothing, gets paid $180,000 a year, and gets chauffeured to work (when he chooses to come) in a limo. A 27-year old convicted felon meter repairman who is related to the former City Administrator gets paid over $56,000 a year, plus benefits, and gets to keep his job. City Councilmembers, the Mayor, and others go on expensive junkets to faraway cities and countries. http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-07/bay-area/17183111_1_stimulus-money-ron-dellums-oakland-mayor
The Grand Jury previously issued a report condemning misuse of City issued credit cards. Now, Jean Quan has previously said that these examples of waste are really just a drop in the bucket, and even if they were eliminated entirely, they would not solve Oakland’s budget crisis. While this may be true, it’s the principle of the thing that just sticks in my craw. I refuse to pay more taxes when the Mayor gets a private chauffeur. Call me irrational.
3. The City Needs To Learn to Live Within Its Means
When private citizens are short on cash, they are expected to tighten their belts. Cancel the cable TV. Stop eating out. Switch to “stay-cations.” Buy used cars. Cut the credit cards in half. That sort of thing. But the City? Why cut costs when you can just threaten and extort more money out of the citizenry? Heck, even Dellums appears to be getting a pass on the fact that he owes $240,000 in back taxes to the IRS and can’t manage to live within a budget. Where is the condemnation from the City Council on this outrage? Talk about leading by example. This guy makes around $180,000 a year, and gets a nice pension from the federal government on top of that, and he can’t manage to stay out of this kind of debt? And what business does he have living in that mansion on Skyline that is obscenely large for two people? Sorry, but my parents taught me if you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. The logic seems obvious. How is it lost on our government officials?
4. Learn From the Private Sector: Slash salaries, benefits
City officials claim that despite all our whining about not devoting sufficient resources for public safety, public safety eats up most of the discretionary budget. But isn’t there room for cost cutting? According to the OPD website, entry level salary is $71,841 to $90,549. Not bad for a job that doesn’t require a college degree. Not to mention opportunities for gobs of overtime, and listen to this claim about benefits: “The City of Oakland is ranked #1 for employer contributions among the 10 largest cities in California. We currently contribute $13,998 per employee as compared to the average $8,812 of other cities of similar size.” Is that really necessary? In this economy, do we need to be so generous? Plus up to 32 days of vacation and holidays? Plus a 9% PERS contribution? Hopefully you’ve all seen the newspaper charts showing that some of these guys are clearing over $200,000 a year, with overtime. Then they retire at 50, get a job somewhere else, and buy an island in Fiji somewhere at 60. Hey, I know being a cop in Oakland is a tough job and all, but are they overcompensated? If so, slash salaries, slash benefits, and make the organization more efficient. But don’t cut the police force. It isn’t allowed under Measure Y, and it isn’t allowed under the COPS grant. Okay, it is allowed, but it would cost around $35 million a year or something like that. Stupid idea. We need more cops, not less. As for the rest of Oakland salaries, a similar analysis needs to be done. Salaries, number of jobs, efficiency, all that sort of stuff. Until and unless that has been done, how dare you ask us to pay more?
Addendum: Since I originally posted this, I found this great summary at Future Oakland on civil servant salaries here.
http://futureoaklandblog.com/2008/08/statistical-surprise-civil-servants-significantly-overpaid/
5. We already Pay Taxes, Damn It!
Most cities manage to pay for their police force without the need for special parcel taxes. Oakland taxpayers are already paying extra taxes through the nose. See http://www.eastbayconservative.com/?s=Ad+valorem; see also http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/10/31/oakland-where-property-taxes-soar-and-the-city/
With all these taxes, shouldn’t the City have enough money to be able to pay for basic services, like police and fire? If most other cities can manage, why can’t Oakland? (According to Alameda County's property tax website, Berkeley, Hayward, San Leandro, Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, and Albany - NONE of these cities have special assessments for police services). Unless you have a good explanation for that one, don’t ask me for more money.
6. The Parcel Tax Will Fail
In order for a parcel tax to pass, 2/3 of the voters must approve it. Last year, the Council put Measure NN on the ballot, which ostensibly was to increase funding and the number of officers. But the language was terrible, and actually did not guarantee additional staffing at all. Moreover, it was really expensive. It got a staggering 55% of the vote, which amazed and disappointed me, but that was still over 11% short of what was needed. So the bottom line was, it wasn't even close. Today, the economy is worse, and the City has suffered the embarrassment of a private citizen winning what amounts to a $15 million lawsuit against it, based on the blatant violations of Measure Y. In addition, lots of people have lost their jobs, endured pay cuts, loss of benefits, or their house could be on the brink of foreclosure. They are already paying way more than neighboring cities in taxes (for generally much poorer services). How much support for a new parcel tax could there possibly be?
A couple days ago, over at www.abetteroakland.com, Oakland lawyer Bruce Nye publicly stated that he supports a new parcel tax. Apparently he and one other lonely soul in this town would support it. The rest of the comments were overwhelmingly against it. Now, I'm not sure that's a really scientific sample (ABO commenters tend to be more informed than your average Oakland Joe) but I'm pretty sure that if a formal poll were conducted (and not a "push poll") there wouldn't even be close to 66% support. So the City shouldn't waste its time on this idea anyway.
7. A Special Election In June Could Cost $800,000
According to the East Bay Express (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2009/12/04/instant-runoff-voting-coming-to-oakland) Oakland is planning on having only one election in 2010, in November. Having a special election in June, which is what I have heard being proposed, would according to this article cost $800,000. That's just throwing good money after bad.
8. Parcel Taxes Are Regressive
As has been pointed out many times already, parcel taxes are unfair. Not to me, mind you. I make a comfortable living and really, I was easily sold on the $88.00 price tag of Measure Y, seeing as I would be getting my own neighborhood police officer (or so I was told). But a house assessed at $250,000 would have to pay the same tax as one assessed at $2,500,000. That's called a regressive tax. Lots of people are opposed to parcel taxes on this basis alone.
I’m sure I’ll have some more reasons to add later, but I’m tired now. Happy New Year, and let’s hope for a better, safer, and more fiscally responsible 2010.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
