Dellums Proposes Son of Measure Y Tax

Mayor Dellums has asked the city council to put a Son of Measure Y tax on the November ballot. The proposed ordinance has loopholes similar to the ones in Measure Y and even worse.

Lenore Anderson drafted the text for Dellums, her last major act as his public safety director before she resigned and left town. The proposal would add another parcel tax to your property bill. The tax for a single family homeowner would increase over three years to $267 per year.

• The new tax would continue forever with annual inflation increases. At least Measure Y has a ten-year sunset clause.

• The promise of 35 additional police for each of three years, for a total of 105 officers, uses the same rubbery language as Measure Y. Supposedly, Measure Y was to add 63 officers to a base figure of 739. For three years after voters passed Measure Y in 2004 the council collected the tax while Oakland had fewer than 739 officers. To this day, Oakland has not reached the promised total force of 802 police. Now the Son of Measure Y promises to add 105 officers to that. The insiders must think, we fooled them once, let's fool them again.

• The ordinance specifies adding officers in fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12. After those three particular years, the language lets the tax go on forever with no stated staffing requirements.

• The proposal authorizes a long list of uses in support of adding police: "recruitment, police academy and training, support staff (payroll and accounting staff, dispatchers, secretarial / administrative / human resources staff, police records specialists, field training officers), vehicles, equipment, supplies, furnishings, facility and infrastructure expansion and central services overhead."

  Take one of the uses, recruitment. Just a few months ago Dellums raided Measure Y for a huge sum of money, supposedly for recruiting. There is no way to separate recruiting for additional officers from recruiting replacement officers (making up for resignations and retirements). A lawsuit against the City's misuse of Measure Y funds on this point and others is pending. The Son of Measure Y would allow all sorts of spending without actually delivering additional police.

• The levy is regressive just like Measure Y: a flat parcel tax on all homeowners regardless of the value of their home. A $200,000 cottage pays the same as a $2 million mansion. Big corporations would pay a mere pittance in relation to the money flowing through their stores, bank branches, etc.

Give us $267 a year – No guarantee of more police

Dellums dropped his ordinance onto the council's table with no public input. In the summer of 2004 the city council at least went through the motions of soliciting residents' views for Measure Y following the defeat of its predecessor, Measure R.

The mayor's office even skipped over hearings in council policy committees, going directly to the July 15 agenda of the full council.

The mayor's haste has not prevented councilmember Jane Brunner from outbidding Dellums. She submitted an amended text calling for a tax of $360 per year. Instead of not delivering 105 officers, Brunner's bogus target is 150 additional police.

When Dellums took office early in 2007, he demanded a salary increase to $184,000 before getting to work. Today many residents feel he has yet to begin working. Now Dellums wants more money from residents before he will add police. Forget it. The City can set a goal of at least 1,100 officers, commit to a plan, and get well on the way with the money it has right now. The mayor, council, and top bureaucrats need to clean up City operations, improve efficiency, and implement real priority for an adequate police force before asking residents for more money.

The Tax-and-Tax-More Machine Sputters

Normally, City Hall officials present a united front to voters on new taxes. Not since Measure R in 2004 has there been significant division among them on a tax proposal. In the wake of an exceptionally high number of nearly simultaneous scandals, that is changing.

On July 15 the council considers a proposal from mayor Ron Dellums, modified with suggestions from councilmember Jane Brunner, to add a new tax on homeowners, $267 a year, for more police. The guarantees of actually getting those police are as toothless as the ones in Measure Y (see above).

Council president Ignacio De La Fuente has announced he is against this Son of Measure Y. In a broadcast email, he writes in part:

There is no way that I can in good conscience support the police services parcel taxes proposed by the Mayor and other council members for the November ballot. The simple reason is that until we here at city hall get our own house in order, we should not be raising taxes on your house.

I do not believe that we have earned your confidence in our fiscal responsibility to ask you for more money for police services.

In fact, I encourage you to defeat any City parcel tax measure put on the ballot.

We will, Mr. President, we will.

De La Fuente mentioned the scandal of the Landscape and Lighting Assessment tax vote in passing. He wrote, "The recent controversy over the voting process with the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) also raises serious concerns that I will express fully at the appropriate time." Since the council has already issued an order to collect the increased LLAD, any appropriate action must roll back the illegal collection of the $12 million increase. The voters said No.

Now is the time to right wrongs and prevent new ones. Oakland is at a crossroads: a reasonably functioning city government – or a banana republic?

Readers Comment

This November's ballot is going to be filled with tax increases and special assessments, I am sensing.

I would hope Oakland residents will be thoroughly disgusted with the post-election fiasco of Ms. Edgerly and vote No on all tax increases. If we chop out the patronage positions and underperforming employees from the 5000-strong City Hall labor pool, we will find the money to keep the lights on, to be open every day of the week, to hire more cops, and to keep the parks maintained.

– Tom Martin

I received a survey call about the proposed parcel tax to pay for more police.

– Marian

(We'd like to know who paid for the survey. If the City paid, the results are public information. If a private interest paid for it and shared the results with the mayor or councilmembers, what does that private party get in return?)