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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.