Ignacio De La Fuente requests input on police parcel tax

City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente is asking Oakland residents to weigh in on Ron Dellums’s proposed parcel tax for more police officers.

Dear Oaklander:

I’m taking a survey! The Mayor is proposing a new parcel tax to fund 35 more Police Officers and 25 Police Service Technicians (PSTs) each year for the next three years. PSTs are “civilian” employees of the police department that assist the Police force in a variety of functions. The police department’s current authorized force is 803 Officers. With this tax, our authorized strength would be 908 Officers after three years. The tax we would pay under this proposal would be approximately:

  • Year 1: Each single family home pays $105 to fund 35 Officers and 25 Police Service Technicians.
  • Year 2: Each single family home pays $175 to fund 70 Officers and 50 Police Service Technicians.
  • Year 3: Each single family home pays $270 to fund 105 officers and 50 Police Service Technicians.

(apartments play about 2/3 of these amounts)

This proposal is moving fast and will be heard by the full City Council on July 15th (the proposal may be amended at that time by Council members). If approved by the Council, a ballot measure will go before us Oakland voters in November.

I want to hear your opinion about this! Please take my survey here.

Thank you!

So, Oaklanders? What do you think? Vote here.

UPDATE: You can read the Mayor’s proposal here (PDF!).

6 thoughts on “Ignacio De La Fuente requests input on police parcel tax

  1. the dude

    This survey is currently closed. Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.

  2. V Smoothe Post author

    Yeah…I don’t really know what the deal is with that. It worked when I posted it. I’ll update the link if it gets fixed.

  3. erocking

    It just worked for me. Here was my response (besides “no”):
    While I think increasing the staffing of the Police Dept, and decreasing crime, should be the Oakland City Government’s number ONE priority, I would never vote for this new tax. With Oakland’s inability to responsibly spend the Measure Y money (on top of the crazy large property taxes I’m already paying that are supposed to fund the Police anyway), why would I vote to be taxed MORE? Oakland needs to show they can spend the money I give them responsibly before I ever agree to give them more. In fact, the hubris shown in even asking for this tax increase in the shadow of the debacle of the Measure Y spending is unbelievable.

  4. Joanna/OnTheGoJo

    I’m vexed on this one. On the one hand I’d be happy to pay even more parcel tax if I really thought the money was going to go to the right place and if the plans for making it happen were all in place. But on the other hand, it is my perception that we keep throwing money at the problem with no solid results. At what point do we say, wait a minute, let’s make sure we have a solid plan to make it happen? And not just a Dellums plan of “we’re going to come up with a plan.”

  5. len raphael

    dellums and brunner both made a parcel tax a condition for increasing the staffing of opd. brunner made that parcel tax part of her platform in her ktop debate w pat mccullough.

    hard to expect brunner to retract that proposal now, but hey maybe she’s born again.

    case in point: whatever happened to all those oakland non security labor contracts that came up in June? Is/did Brunner accept every union wage increase or are those still under discussion?

    until the edgerly debacle, 99.9% of oakland residents had no idea of the depths of what Chip J. in the kqed broadcast called oakland govt’s “patronage nepotism memorialized in the institution”. as my neighbor who’s lived her for 60 years says “oakland has a long dishonorable history of corruption and patronage, going back decades”. That it’s gotten to monumental proportions is probably only because of the increases in federal funding and development fees, which enabled the institution to engorge itself without residents noticing, adding staff and supervisors, programs without questioning by council (except for cops).