Police parcel tax will be on the November ballot

I’m sure you’ll read about it in the newspaper tomorrow, and I’ll do something longer on this discussion probably this weekend, because it was pretty interesting. But there you go. The Council voted in favor of asking you to tax yourself (PDF!) to the tune of $266/year (by the third year) for more police. Now it’s all up to you in November. Ignacio De La Fuente and Desley Brooks said no, everyone else said yes.

Jean Quan informed everyone that the annual cost is roughly what it costs to fill up her car once, so it really isn’t that big a deal. Seriously! Watch it:

Quan also thinks that trainees in the Academy should count towards the total number of police on the force.

12 thoughts on “Police parcel tax will be on the November ballot

  1. oaklandhappenings

    If City Hall miraculously got their act together by November, I can see why this would be put on the ballot. After all, we do need the police. If the reform efforts are all in place 3 1/2 months from now, it will be an interesting election day.

  2. oakie

    Nothing will happen between now and election day. You expect a different result from this same crew? That is insane. Vote NO CONFIDENCE. They are demonstrably wasting the money they already have: don’t give them a penny more.

    They could already afford the additional cops if they didn’t pay $260,000 per year to Little Miss Debbie, $210,000 to her little assistant, and the Finance Director (who tried to hand a couple thousand dollars in CASH) to the whistle blower Controller fired by Little Miss Debbie), Little Miss Debbie’s 2 kids who alllegedly (by the fired Controller) submitted falsified time sheets, and are now permanent employees (with rules adjusted so they can stay).

    Note that those salaries do not include full benefits including car allowances, and still don’t include all the pension liabilities we will have to eventually pay.

    You expect different results from a city mismanaged to that extent until today, and now in the next 3 months something is going to change to make it non-dysfunctional? I want some of what you’re smokin.

  3. Joanna/OnTheGoJo

    Quan wants the police academy cadets counted????!!!! Was she smokin crack? Seriously? NFW.

    You know, by putting this on the ballet they can point their fingers back to the public when it doesn’t pass and people complain about crime. “Well, you didn’t want to pay for more cops, so you’re not going to get more cops.” I can see it now. What a lose/lose for the City.

    It’s not that I expect the disfunctional to suddenly become functional, but can there at least be some movement towards rational?

  4. Surfways

    I really need to find a way to communicate with other residents in District 4 to see if any of them have made Quan aware of their displeasure of her llogic and attitude (I am deaf and not many people seem willing to even try to communicate with me by way of text; email, paper/pen).

    I wish I could offer a solution instead of complain… I can only hope that a competent person will be running against her when the D4 Council seat comes up for election.

  5. Donald

    My concern is that the mayor has been playing politics in an effort to make the point that people don’t really want additional police services— enough to actually pay for—
    it in the hope that he can avoid having additional police. I know that is cynical,
    but I’m not oblivious to his leftist history.

    Also, parcel taxes like this one create at least two revenue streams for the police department: one from the general fund and one from the special tax. What is to prevent some future council from reducing the general fund allocation? Or reducing the normal increase of the general fund allocation?

    That would effectively use the parcel tax to fund other priorities.

    I think it makes more sense, and is more honest to just go to the voters and ask for a property tax increase. I would vote for that, but only if I thought the Council and City Manager were careful custodians of the city bank account. I don’t see the discipline, however. I think the city should be run more like a business and less like the church it has become.

    I’m with Ignacio on this one. Kudos to him.

  6. Andy

    Well this is not a surprise. And I won’t be surprised if this passes. Disappointed yes, but not surprised.

    I live in D4. Quan is an idiot. By her logic, lets just raise taxes to pay for everything that the government wants as long as each tax is less than it cost to fill up her 40 gallon tank. What is she driving?

    How do we start a stop this campaign?

  7. justin

    I’m not so sure this is going to pass: it needs 2/3 voter approval and I just don’t see that happening in Oakland, even in a general election with Obama on the ballot.

    I agree with Donald that the failure of this measure will offer some political cover of the “well, if you all wanted police, you would have voted for them” variety. However, anyone in favor of more police, such as myself, can reject this tax based on the inability of the City to hire the police we’re all already paying for through Measure Y.

    The ballots going to be crowded with money, too: high speed rail, water bond, AC Transit, EBRPD, and now this. Folks may just say no to all of it.

  8. V Smoothe Post author

    Passage will be even less likely if the Council passes legislation allowing landlords to pass on part of the tax increase to their tenants, as Pat Kernighan suggested last night she would like to do.

  9. Patrick McCullough

    Campaigning for clean government and safe streets, I called for more cops, a wage freeze, top salary cuts, and audits to cut waste – achievable without layoffs or service cuts. The “leaders” replied freezes and cuts would be too difficult to negotiate and granted raises, apparently believing it easier to lie to and manipulate the voters.

    After elections ratifying the leaders’ behavior, Mayor & council proposed a parcel tax for more police, called for reform, and said the budget deficit of the budget they voted to pass was understated.

    Voters have been tricked, hoodwinked, and bamboozled. They’re being manipulated to make a Sophie’s choice between increasing our willfully understaffed police force or funding a deficit at least 3 times what leaders told voters it was last month. Familiar faces are now grandstanding to say we need reform and their leadership.

    What’s disingenuous is that they all were not long ago feeding at the same trough – either benefiting through others or directly, or passively neglecting the more honorable duty of oversight and vociferously notifying the public of the corruption and budget problems defaming Oakland as much as it’s intractable crime.

    Oakland deserves more. It may take recall and prosecution to obtain it.

  10. len raphael

    Our mayor and city council owe deborah edgerly big time for giving them the opportunity to blame her for the city’s deficit understatement. she deserves every nickle of that 200k+ pension and lifetime paid medical benefits.

    her budget “errors” gave our mayor and most of the council members the political cover they needed to repay their union supporters with pay increases to dig our hole deeper.

    maybe that’s why pat k. and jane b. were so complimentary of deborah’s years of past service in their recent mass emails. deborah knew which side her bread was buttered.

    -len raphael

  11. Patrick McCullough

    I’m generally in favor of paying more taxes for increased police services. However, it’s not a straight deal in Oakland, and I don’t believe I’ll get my money’s worth when the go-between is not trustworthy. For every dollar taxed, you can bet that a good percentage will be squandered by some underhanded dealing by our less-than honorable city leaders.

    If you want to immediately be safer, and not see your money wasted by people who’ve shown you they can’t be trusted, invest in self-defense courses, tools, private security.