Measure Y is a great example as to why we don't trust government

Written by Byron Williams

Thursday, 10 June 2010

If you were in need of an example as to why voters distrust government, you would be hard pressed to find a better illustration than Oakland’s Measure Y.

In 2004 nearly 70 percent of Oakland voters passed Measure Y, a public safety parcel tax. Measure Y allowed the City of Oakland to collect approximately $20 million in revenue annually.

Voters assumed a “yes” vote meant $4 million would go to fire services, the remaining 40 percent collected would go toward violence prevention programs administered by the City’s Department of Human Services, and 60 percent of the remaining funds directed toward police services, specifically community policing program as well as additional officers for truancy enforcement, domestic violence, and special victims units.
Measure Y also prohibited tax collection unless the City “appropriates” sufficient funding (from the general fund) to maintain baseline staffing.

This latter point is important because the baseline staffing for police officers was 739. The 63 Measure Y funded officers plus one additional is how the City arrives at 803 officers as its magic number.

In the past six years, the City has reached a minimum of 803 officers for no more than six months.
Oakland resident and local public entity attorney, Marleen Sacks recently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the City from collecting the annual Measure Y taxes because of its failure to maintain the baseline staffing.

The City contended as long as it has a line item in its budget for 739 officers it has complied with the requirements of Measure Y.

Did Oakland voters support a parcel tax so that their local government could put a line item in the budget for the requisite number of police officers with no real expectation they would actually comply with the Measure Y guidelines?

This logic suggest as long as you placed your utility bill as a line item in your personal budget that would suffice in lieu of an actual expenditure.

Looking strictly at the law, and not the campaign rhetoric, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled for the City.

The Oakland Police Department has an attrition rate of nearly five officers per month. If one is running a business that loses 5 employees per month, is it not incumbent upon them to make provisions to replace those employees?

For a police department, holding academies is how one addresses its attrition rate. Yet, no full academies have been conducted since 2008. But police academies are costly; the last one scheduled in November 2008 was canceled saving roughly $4.5 million.

Last year, Ms. Sacks brought another suit and Judge Roesch found the City illegally spent between 10-$15 million of Measure Y funds that now must be replaced. Money it doesn’t have.

While the City might cite mitigating factors not included in my assessment of the Measure Y debacle, here’s how its projected to the public.

If you run a well-known bakery, drive a Ferrari, and may have mismanaged the business, you can still receive $150,000 in bailout from the city on top of more than $200,000 of taxpayer money already allocated.

Meanwhile, voters in good faith supported a tax that would provide a baseline number of police officers, plus additional officers designated for community policing, which is key if you are to have any success to the recently instituted gang injunction program in North Oakland, only to realize six years later some funds were used inappropriately, they did not maintain the required staffing, and played word games to get around the spirit of the measure.

The problems associated with Measure Y, are the problems associated with direct democracy. I have long been against ballot measures, especially those that ask for funding simply because there is no way to address the unintended consequences inherent in legislation of any type.

The unintended consequence, in this case, was insufficient funds to meet the needs articulated. The Measure Y campaign focused on winning. More emphasis was placed on what will garner voter approval rather than what was actually needed.

With this stellar record of accomplishment there is actually talk of putting a Measure Y redux on the ballot. The notion of asking voters to support more taxes based on a model that has clearly wasted taxpayer dollars and failed to meet its goals is the height of arrogance and tone deafness that justifiably makes people apathetic and distrustful of government.

Good intentions notwithstanding, Measure Y has become but another example of fiscal malfeasance, bureaucratic arrogance, and public disappointment.