Supreme Court Ruling Increases Pressure
on LLAD Tax Hike

A decision by the California Supreme Court calls into question the very purpose of Oakland's Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD).

The court, reviewing a case from Silicon Valley, made it clear that the California constitution requires assessment districts to deliver special benefits to particular properties, not general benefits to the public at large. Otherwise, a district is illegal. In the case at hand:

"Here, with a district of 314,000 parcels, OSA shows no distinct benefits to particular properties above those which the general public using and enjoying the open space receives. ... A special benefit must affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from its effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share." (Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority)

This sounds remarkably like the Oakland LLAD, which encompasses the entire city with 106,000 parcels, and which provides benefit to the general public by allegedly being used to keep up parks, trim sidewalk trees, and maintain street lighting. (We say allegedly because the City does not even honor the stated uses for LLAD money. Instead nearly 80 cents of every new dollar would go back to the general fund, to be used for anything except parks and such.)

City Hall preferred to go for a LLAD rather than a parcel tax for parks, because a LLAD ballot is easier to rig, as recent experience indicates. In addition, assessment votes are by simple majority, while a parcel tax requires a two-thirds vote of approval.

By coincidence, the Court issued its ruling on July 15, 2008, just at the moment when Oakland residents are angry about the stuffed ballots used to change their LLAD no vote into a phony approval result. It comes on the heels of residents angry about the corruption of the Deborah Edgerly crew, about the failure of Measure Y, and the audacity of the mayor and council even considering a Son of Measure Y tax before straightening out the violations and failure of Measure Y to provide the promised number of police after four years.

The city council should spare the City the grief of inevitable defeat. It must cancel its order to collect an increase LLAD. It must recognize that the voters said no, that the council is losing all credibility, and that the State supreme court has called an end to playing games with assessment districts.