Scandal of Stuffed Ballot Box Widens

Despite statements about cleaning up corruption in the wake of the Deborah Edgerly scandal, City Hall has moved to evade public scrutiny of an illegal increase in the Landscape and Lighting Assessment tax (LLAD), while the press reports new evidence of vote rigging.

On June 17 the city council declared that voters in a mail-in ballot conducted during April and May had passed an increase in the LLAD tax by a vote of 3.2 million to 2.8 million. According to California law, the votes of property owners must be weighted by their "proportional financial obligation" under the assessment.

As reported last month, the City short-counted single family homes, weighting their votes only by the proposed increase in their LLAD assessment, while giving the Port of Oakland 1.4 million votes reflecting its entire proposed assessment.

City dropped homeowner and apartment votes into wastebasket.

Further examination of the voting returns shows that another 600,000 Yes votes were cast for properties belonging to the City itself, the City's Redevelopment Agency, and the City and County as joint owners. As with the Port, the City weighted the votes by their entire assessment.

The vote-rigging was so bad that the City gave a single-family residential property it owns at 1148 71st Ave. a weighting of 169.36 while the private owner of the single-family residence at 1145 71st Ave. received a weighting of 66.72. Both properties will be assessed $169.36 for the LLAD.

The public Redevelopment Agency budget for 2008-09 does not show funds for paying a LLAD tax.

An investigation by Robert Gammon in the East Bay Express uncovered additional evidence of vote tampering, concluding, "the city valued the port's votes at nearly three times more than they should have been worth."

When the City mailed ballots, an accompanying brochure advised people who had questions about voting procedures to contact Joe Francisco. Francisco's firm had a City contract to design and count the LLAD vote.

Sorry, no answers here.

After news of the City's ballot-stuffing appeared, ORPN co-founder Charles Pine emailed Mr. Francisco asking how the votes for homeowners and the Port were weighted. He replied, "All questions need to go to Jocelyn Combs at the City of Oakland. She will be handling all property owner responces (sic)."

Pine forwarded his inquiry to Ms. Combs, who replied with an "explanation" of the extra weight for Port and City properties: "The courts have validated a city's apportionment of votes in an assessment district financing based upon the relative financial burden to the property subject to the assessment. In this case the 'relative financial burden' is the new amount to be assessed – which in the case of public agencies is the entire amount." (email, July 3, 2008)

The City's explanation is pure flim-flam. State law for assessment districts says, "The ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property." (California constitution, Art. XIII D, section 4e) Yes, one property owner's vote shall be relative to another's per their assessments. If the City wants to count Port and City votes by total assessment, let it do the same for single family homes. Their vote would be 3.8 million, not the less than 1.5 million that the City actually counted for homeowners who voted.

The City wants it both ways. For voting purposes, Ms. Combs states the Port previously did not pay the LLAD. But that is not true. The East Bay Express confirmed that the Port has paid the LLAD tax since 2000. The Port's "new amount" – the proposed increase over its previous LLAD payment – is 553,000, not 1.4 million.

Council president Ignacio De La Fuente was asked about the LLAD controversy at a July 2 press conference. He replied that the council will consider the matter in closed session on July 15. After that meeting, an aide to councilmember Nadel emailed a constituent, "The LLAD issue was discussed in Closed Session and there is nothing at this time to make public." Your councilmembers are plotting to steal your money by declaring that a defeated tax increase "passed," so of course they tell the public nothing.

Oakland citizens are fed up with the mayor, the city council, and the top bureaucrats at City Hall:

• Revelations of wrongdoing by city administrator Deborah Edgerly in support of the Acorn gang and the soap opera leading to her termination shocked residents.

• People suffer endless muggings, vehicle smash-ins, and loud disturbances by adherents of thug culture. Oakland has become a national disgrace for its lack of basic public safety.

• According to a KTVU report, the mayor spends City money for lavish hotel suites and fancy flowers. His official calendar shows him putting in two or three hours on many days.

• The Alameda County grand jury's annual report documents use of City credit cards by councilmembers and top staff for meals at fancy restaurants, apparently personal book purchases, $65 in condolence flowers "for a constituent" and $71 for flowers "for a newly hired department director from another director with a card that read: 'You Go Girl!'," a $172 picture frame, and on and on.

• Now the city council has rushed to declare that a big increase in the LLAD tax "passed," with one councilmember mocking and disrespecting a citizen who pointed out the clear evidence of ballot stuffing.

Structural Flaw of Assessment Votes State law allows a city to propose an assessment and also oversee the ballot count. In effect, prosecutor and judge are the same person. Most cities handle the dual responsibility with fairness. Oakland, however, operates like a banana republic – although, in its politically correct way, an organic banana republic.

Despite the political wreckage lying around him, mayor Dellums has proposed a new Son of Measure Y tax. He wants more money from residents on a loophole-filled promise of more police. Forget it. The City needs to clean up operations, improve efficiency, and implement real priority for an adequate police force before asking residents for more money.

The scandal of stuffing the LLAD ballot box will not go away. The choice before the council is clear. It can leave the order to collect the LLAD tax increase in place, destroying all respect for City government and risking a lawsuit. Or the council, recognizing that the LLAD voters defeated the proposed tax increase, can cancel the tax collection order.

Recognizing the no vote on the LLAD would be the first step in restoring a bit of credibility to the most dishonest, dysfunctional, and disreputable major city government that California has seen in decades.

Councilmember Nadel Defends Vote Rigging

A constituent had an email exchange with councilmember Nancy Nadel about the rigged LLAD vote. Nadel's first reply was the following:

Not sure what factual media account you might have read about the LLAD vote. I don't know any investigative reporters anymore, sadly. The blog, newspaper and yahoo group information is inaccurate as is David Mix. Incorrect things repeated over and over doesn't make them correct. The Port had no LLAD assessment in 1994 therefore the votes based on the full assessment rather than the difference was appropriate.

Instead of bemoaning the demise of investigative reporters, Nadel should read the LLAD investigation by reporter Robert Gammon in the East Bay Express. His investigation found that the Port paid the LLAD assessment since 2000, and he concluded, "the city valued the port's votes at nearly three times more than they should have been worth."

In a second reply, Nadel in effect said, forget the details of democracy, we need the LLAD money:

The city is constantly increasing parks and landscaped median strips at the request of residents and we had no escalator in the earlier LLAD. As property to maintain increases, and inflation increases, the money has to come from somewhere to do the maintenance on parks that people want.

Her argument might be more persuasive if the proposed LLAD increase would maintain parks, but in reality nearly 80 cents of every new dollar would not be spent on parks, trees, and street lights.

info@johnrusso.com
nnadel@oaklandnet.com
dbrooks@oaklandnet.com
jquan@oaklandnet.com
pkernighan@oaklandnet.com
officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com
idelafuente@oaklandnet.com
jbrunner@oaklandnet.com
cityochang@aol.com
rebkaplan@earthlink.net

Dear Mr. Russo [City Attorney],

I was very upset to read in the East Bay Express, the Oakland News, Oakland Residents for Peaceful Neighborhoods and the HarriOak News that the LLAD vote was rigged by improperly increasing the weight of the votes by the Port of Oakland. As a homeowner who bought in 2005, I already am paying a hugely disproportionate tax – about $1000 per month – and receiving a level of basic service that is simply appalling. Municipal codes are not consistently enforced in my neighborhood and the California penal code is only selectively enforced – though this appears to be getting better thanks to the efforts of several neighborhood groups. Now I learn that my vote against the special assessment district was not properly counted.

This is not acceptable and it will not be tolerated. I request to know what action the City Attorney's Office is planning to take.

– (name withheld)

This is official corruption of the highest order, which should be addressed by a taxpayer lawsuit that names the city and individual officials involved in this fraud.

– Wayne Rowland

Think nepotism is a problem? How about rigging the vote?

Remember the last go-around when we voted on the LLAD [2006]? City admin and city council campaigning with a force that took our breath away! Mass mailouts (we paid for) of sophisticated colorful brochures with happy children and trees included with our utility bills? Trying with all might to get the vote out.

And this go-around? There was not a peep. Nothing. Quiet. Completely under the radar.

Why? Isn't is obvious. They already had the votes, they already had agreed on how to rig the count. They did not have to campaign.

I just love to be a sucker.

– Svea

We actually have two issues going here:

1. Was the LLAD election rigged? and

2. Is the Calif. Supreme Court decision going to eliminate the LLAD altogether?

On item 1, I voted for the LLAD, because I supported the cause; and frankly, even I feel screwed over by the elegant maneuvers with the Port of Oakland vote. If you have to rig the vote to get it to pass – and it sure sounded to me as if they did rig it – then it shouldn't pass. From what I read, the way the Port's vote was weighted was the only way that measure could have been approved; that's beyond coincidence.

On item 2, you may be right that the state supreme court decision will hit the LLAD and cause cutbacks. However, what it really means is that this and all City Councils will have to take a hard look at their funding priorities and how they do fund things. I've read several accounts in this list about Oakland measures passed to raise money for what I consider essential services (police, fire, and yes, parks and libraries) – and when the measures passed, the Council immediately reduced general funding for those services. God He knows what they did with the money, but it looks to me like a measure passed for a parcel tax immediately equals a cut in the amount of the general fund devoted to that function. That's no way to run a railroad – or a city – and that sort of thinking is exactly why I'm so disgusted with the entire city council. And they've been doing this for most of the twenty years I've lived here. If the Supreme Court decision will make them stop and think, all the better. Sometimes you have to let things break before people really learn how bad they are.

– Karen Ivy

Something is amiss when a government has to have these cute little ballot initiatives in order to fund things that obviously should be funded by a government's general fund. I know every state and every city does it, but it's still not right. Let landscape and lighting suffer for a couple of years. Let the city government know that this kind of backdoor-funding crap won't work here anymore. Let there be pressure on it to come up with transparent, fair, efficient ways of allocating our already-too-high property tax receipts.

– Christopher

Why is it always the homeowner who gets taxed? Why not use the sales tax for increased funding so that everyone pays?!

– Stephen