LLAD Tax Hike Would Grab 80 Percent for Pork

The Oakland city council wants to increase the so-called Landscape and Lighting Assessment (LLAD) on your property tax bill, taking nearly 80 cents of every new dollar for political pork.

According to a City staff report, "If the LLAD increase is approved by Oakland property owners the LLAD revenue would increase by $12.0 million from $18.1 million to $30.1 million."(Staff report to council finance committee, Feb. 26, 2008)

Most of the new $12 million would not be used for tree, park and street light maintenance. In the totally one-sided brochure mailed to homeowners with their LLAD ballot, City Hall whines, "The amount of money needed for services being provied by the LLAD is $9.8 million more than what is being generated through the current LLAD."

Yes, general fund money helps trim trees and such. For years both general fund and LLAD money have maintained parks. No law, no principle of public finance, requires that the LLAD alone take care of all tree, park, and street light maintenance.

A little more than $2 million of the proposed tax increase would go into the LLAD account, while nearly $10 million currently spent for trees and lighting would be freed up for political pork.

For example, about a year ago the council voted itself four new staff aides. Did the council seek voter approval for them? Of course not. Now the council wants to take nearly 80 percent of proposed new tax money for any similar uses it can think of.

Most of new tax money is taken away from trees, parks, and lighting ($ millions)

It gets worse. The same tax hike law would begin automatic annual increases in the LLAD tax, tied to inflation of the consumer price index. In fact, City revenues have outpaced inflation since the last LLAD vote in 1993, but tree trimming and other services have declined.

Mislabeled tax increases are a specialty of this city council. Measure Y taxes were voted in 2004 on the promise of more police officers. Instead, for three years we have had fewer officers than when Measure Y was written. Nonetheless, the council votes every year to collect the Measure Y tax.

The increased Landscape and Lighting Assessment should really be titled an assessment for More Executives, Favored Insiders, and Wasteful Bureaucracy. By now there has been time to change the title for accuracy. In 2006 the city council submitted a similar proposal for a LLAD increase. The same bait-and-switch was in play, diverting 55 cents of every new tax dollar away from trees and lighting. This year the figure is up to nearly 80 cents of every dollar.

The council presents the LLAD proposal as a vote for more or less tree trimming and park maintenance. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a vote about giving the council more money for entirely unrelated uses.

In both cases – Measure Y and the LLAD – voters are shown images of wonderful services. In both cases, the reality is that new money simply replaces existing service expenditures out of the general fund, leaving big bucks there for political pork.

A mail-in vote by owners of homes and other property is required to approve a LLAD tax increase. On March 18 the city council will likely approve the mailing of ballots in mid-April – right after you've paid your property tax bill. Be sure to vote No and mail it back.

Councilmember Threatens Parks and Trees Cuts

Councilmember Jean Quan threatened, "I don't think people want to see cutbacks in maintenance to our parks." She made the remark as a council committee recommended an increase in the Landscape and Lighting Assessment (LLAD) on property tax bills.

According to a news report, "the tax has not been increased since 1993. Meanwhile, costs of maintaining parks and street lights have gone up, city officials said." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 12, 2008)

Councilmembers do not tell the public that general fund revenues have more than doubled since 1993, outpacing inflation. Where did the money go?

Staffing tells the same story: less service despite more resources. In 1989, the City had 82 gardeners. Today it has only 63. In the same period, total City employment rose by 557, from 3844 to 4401 FTE positions. (Gardener count according to Oakland Parks Coalition report, March 11, 2008, p. 15)

Suddenly, the council wants a jump in the LLAD tax. However, nearly 80 cents of every new dollar would not be used for parks, trees, and street lights. Instead, it would go into the general fund for the council to vote any pork it wishes – like the additional political staff councilmembers gave themselves a year ago.

The council that sold Measure Y but did not deliver more police now wants to sell a LLAD tax jump, including automatic inflation hikes every year for the next 15 years.

Homeowners and other property owners will receive a mail-in ballot in April. By voting no, residents can tell councilmember Quan that when she threatens service cuts, they understand she is really saying, give us councilmembers more money to play with. Her position is, we are diverting 80 percent it to anything except parks, but if you don't give us the increase, we'll cut park maintenance.