With speeches, signs reading “Make Big Oil Pay,” and lessons on useful protest tactics, Frank H. Ogawa Plaza was converted into a training ground Sunday afternoon for 50 environmental activists and organizers.

The public teach-in, hosted by the group Mobilization for Climate Justice West, was part of a two-day event that includes a march scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Monday in San Francisco. The “Make Big Oil Pay” protest is set to start at Justin Herman Plaza, at the Embarcardero end of Market Street. Participants, including many who were at Sunday’s teach-in, are then expected walk to the offices of British Petroleum and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency.

Ellen Choy, an organizer with Mobilization for Climate Justice West, said Sunday’s activity — with speeches and a hip-hop performance in addition to the teaching groups — is part of a larger effort for the group. “We decided this year that we would be targeting big oil,” she said.

Mobilization for Climate Justice West, an umbrella group of about a dozen Bay Area environmental organizations, focuses on coordinating demonstrations and offering the organizations’ view of public education concerning climate change. The local group received national attention Dec. 7, 2009, when about 30 people were arrested during a protest in front of Chevron’s headquarters in San Ramon.

Monday’s demonstration takes place during the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s assault on the Gulf of Mexico region. The storm, which hit Aug. 29, 2005, displaced 800,000 people, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The severity of the Category 5 storm has been said by some scientists to be a byproduct of global warming.

The gulf is now suffering the environmental impact of the fire and explosion on a British Petroleum oil rig last April, which spilled oil at a rate of 210,000 gallons a day over a course of 3 months. “Those oil companies, we would say, are our obstacle toward clean energy and renewable energy,” said Mobilization organizer David Solnit. The decision to schedule the two-day demonstration during the anniversary of the hurricane and five months after the spill was to “show solidarity with the communities of the Gulf Coast,” he said.

Solnit helped lead a teach-in civil disobedience workshop in which participants were taught such as strategies how to link arms and keep their fingers protected when the police arrive to disperse them. They were also told that once handcuffed, they can still shout their message if media is present. “I think direct action and protest, along with education, are the most effective things we can do,” Solnit said.

Carla Perez, program coordinator with an ecologically focused organization called Movement Generation, said she has found that concentrating on local immediate concerns is a good way to interest people in governmental decisions and policies. “It really starts with calling attention to the things that are the most concerning to people,” she said. “The first issue is their health.” Respiratory problems, cancer and immune deficiencies may be related to environmental health, she said.

Perez led a workshop on building community strength and resiliency during the aftermath of natural disaster. Participants sat beneath the trees on the north end of the plaza, trading ideas about how to store water–filling bathtubs, for example, or tapping into full water — as well as how to store non-perishable foods.

During Solnit’s workshop, organizers also suggested options on managing possible confrontations with police as well as with local workers who might be frustrated with obstructing demonstrators. Participants were instructed to remain calm, keep stressing the nonviolent nature of their demonstration, and tell workers, “The police have been called. They’re on their way.”

The intent of the demonstration is to “hold the oil industry’s feet to the fire, so that they pay for the damage and the impact to the community,” Solnit said.

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Nine candidates shared the spotlight at the Sierra Club’s Oakland mayoral forum on Wednesday night, despite selective invitations that initially drew criticism.

The forum, hosted in downtown Oakland by the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter at the East Bay Community Foundation, allowed the candidates to discuss their particular plans for green governance. Candidates addressed five questions prepared ahead of time by Sierra Club members. Topics ranged from high-density, affordable housing to the creation of green jobs. A crowd of Sierra Club members, as well as many campaign volunteers out to support their candidates, attended the forum.

Although each candidate cited emissions from idling trucks and ships in the Port of Oakland as an environmental hazard, they diverged widely over how they would address the issue as mayor.

Don Perata, a former state senator and one-time senate president pro tem, said that regulating pollution from the port should be straightforward, since the Port Commission ultimately works for the mayor. “There shouldn’t be any need to ask for the cooperation,” Perata said. “You just get the cooperation.” He also mentioned $1 billion in untapped money from state proposition 1B that could pay for programs at the port.

Proposition 1B, passed in 2006, created $2 billion in bond money for the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund.  The money can be appropriated by the state legislature for improvements in what the federal government designates as trade corridors of “national significance.”

Terence Candell, executive director of Candell’s College Preparatory Academy, used his turn to ask Perata why he didn’t secure these proposition 1B funds for the Port of Oakland while in the state senate. Then Candell said that as mayor he would rewrite the city charter so that the mayor was responsible for truck upgrades in the port. Upgrades to engine parts that cause high carbon dioxide emissions are part of an ongoing effort to reduce toxins released by trucks in Oakland’s port.

Most candidates suggested small ways the port could be changed. Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan said that upgrading vehicles to be more environmentally friendly was a good start, but added, “By the way, those retrofits need to be maintained.” Kaplan suggested an on-site maintenance center would keep the trucks’ pollution down.

Oakland City Councilmember Jean Quan promised to look at what the city of Los Angeles has done to control trucking emissions at its port, and many candidates referred to the L.A. plan, which puts more responsibility on trucking companies for the emissions coming from their trucks, as a model for Oakland. Truckers in Oakland’s port are currently responsible for the upkeep of their own trucks, which many candidates said is too financially onerous for such low-paid workers.

Candidate Arnold Fields took yet another approach, saying that the port should finance its own electric grid and new, “clean, green machines” to haul loads in and out.

However, former reporter and political consultant Joe Tuman said the city government’s relationship with the port was not so easy to navigate. “If there’s going to be an impact for that or a fix for that, it’s not going to come from us,” Tuman said, adding that the port falls outside the Oakland city government’s jurisdiction. The only way the mayor can control the port, Tuman said, is by changing the terms for the leases on the 13 points of entry into the port.

Candidates also addressed the idea of Oakland bringing in more sustainable energy by taking over its own power generation. The largest difference of opinion surfaced over whether PG&E was a viable partner for delivering solar and wind energy to Oakland residents and businesses.

Green Party candidate Don Macleay cited the need for a large partner like PG&E to bring sustainably produced energy to Oakland. “We have a lot of space available and we should use it,” said Macleay, “but I want to make sure we’re doing something that’s viable and realistic.”

Quan cast doubt on the workability of a relationship with PG&E. “In Oakland we were very heavily pressured by PG&E,” Quan said. “Then there was an effort to close that option before we even looked at it.” In June, California voted against a ballot measure that would have required majority voter approval for any municipality in the state to take over power generation. News sources reported that PG&E provided millions in funding to support the measure.

“I think we should have a little good capitalist competition here between green energy and PG&E over time,” Quan went on to say.

The last question of the night asked candidates how they would address “perpetually underfunded” parks and recreation programs, as well as tree planting efforts. Candidates went back and forth on whether funds exist for these programs. Perata was quick to say that the Urban Releaf program already plants trees in Oakland. “We don’t need to reinvent the wheel,” he said, “just support what we have.”

While Joe Tuman said parks and recreation could not be a priority until Oakland digs out of its “enormous financial hole,” Kaplan went on to say that a focus on building Oakland’s economy would restore these programs in time.

Throughout the forum, the crowd’s mood appeared supportive of the candidates. Sierra Club members filed in wearing their green member stickers, and many campaign volunteers also attended.

If Wednesday’s forum had gone as originally planned, only three candidates would have presented their opinions to the crowd. The Sierra Club drew criticism after Kent Lewandowski, a volunteer chairperson, initially told several candidates by email that they would not be included. Only the three candidates deemed “most viable”—Quan, Kaplan, and Perata—would have had an opportunity to speak at the forum.

According to Kate Kelley, senior chapter director of the San Francisco Bay Sierra Club, the group’s candidate viability standards were adopted from guidelines created by the League of Women Voters. “Many organizations look to the League of Women Voters as a guide to create a format for these kinds of forums,” Kelley said. “We looked to them as our guide.”

The guidelines for viability range from points gauging the candidate’s level of political activity to more controversial and complex requirements.  According to the guidelines, a candidate must meet all of the requirements of a threshold list — including making a public intention to run, staffing a publicly accessible campaign headquarters, and having a website or other material with an articulated campaign platform.  Additional criteria exclude those who have not garnered over 5 percent favor in a professionally conducted opinion poll, received over 400 donations, received 20 percent of the vote in a previous general election, or held the office they are currently seeking.

The League of Women Voters is planning a September 23 forum using these guidelines, and only Quan, Kaplan, and Perata have been invited to attend.

Invited and uninvited candidates alike railed against the Sierra Club’s decision.  Perata pledged to boycott the event unless all guests were invited.  Rhys Williams, campaign spokesperson, said Perata felt participating in a comprehensive forum was the only “fair, democratic, and respectful” option.

An email sent by Dyra Candell, the Candell campaign’s chief of staff and wife of the candidate, accused the Sierra Club and Kent Lewandowski of elitism and bigotry. “The only thing that disappoints me is that the people of Oakland lose again because of elitist pigs like you,” the email read. Oakland North and other media outlets were sent copies of the correspondence.

Terence Candell said he fully supports his wife and backed the sentiment of the email at the time it was sent.  Though the Sierra Club eventually allowed all registered candidates to speak, Candell says he was stunned by the initial decision. “Oakland has never been an exclusive club, we’ve always tried to be inclusive,” he said.

The Ella Baker Center, formerly a participant in the forum through its initiative, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition, retracted its support after the format became known. Abel Habtegeorgis, spokesperson for Ella Baker Center, said that a forum with only three participants would not be fair.  “We felt that too many candidates were excluded,” Habtegeorgis said. “We believe that candidate forums should be as fair and balanced as possible.”  Despite the organization’s approval of the decision to allow full participation, the coalition has decided to coordinate its own environmental forum on green jobs and climate action on September 15.

Media backlash followed the announcement as well.  An editorial in Oakland Local railed against the decision, saying the move seemed designed only to “keep people ignorant of what a broader field of candidates thought.”  Zennie Abraham, a local blogger, was a recipient of the original Sierra Club email sent to the uninvited candidates, and replied directly to Lewandowski to express his displeasure with the move.  “If The Sierra Club is not intellectually capable of solving the riddle of hosting a comprehensive forum for the people of Oakland, just don’t do one,” Abraham wrote.

Kelley said the public reaction prompted the Sierra Club’s format revision. “The candidates wanted it to be all-inclusive,” Kelley said. “When we received some pushback on our format, we made the change.”

While the expanded format allowed each of the participating candidates equal time to speak, it also limited the depth of responses. Ron Bishop, conservation chair on the Sierra Club’s Northern Alameda executive committee, said there was no way to fully probe each candidate with a 90-minute time limit. “We could only ask so many questions,” Bishop said. “It would be an all-day event to have a serious discussion with every candidate.”

Ultimately, Candell said he was grateful for the effort undertaken by the Sierra Club to make their forum accessible to all. “I appreciate the fact that they backed off something they knew was wrong,” Candell said. “We are not the type to hold a grudge, we’ve got too much work to do.  We’ve got to make sure this city moves forward and everyone must be included.”

Other candidates said they were happy to receive a belated invitation to the forum. Referring to his campaign slogan, local realtor and community organizer Larry Lionel Young, Jr. said, “If Oakland wants change, if they want to be open and hear the democratic process, come November 2nd, they’ll vote ‘LL’ and Oakland will be well.”

Macleay said that he would like to see organizations use social media and the Internet to bring the candidates’ ideas to more people. “The Sierra Club could have interviewed us and put it on the Internet,” said Macleay. “Or they could hold events more like mixers.”

Oakland organizations are planning several more forums in the weeks before the mayoral election. In addition to forums on September 23 and October 21, the League of Women Voters would like to host an all-inclusive event that could later be posted to the Internet, according to member Helen Hutchinson.

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

A white pickup was parked on Broadway in downtown Oakland on Wednesday. It was there last week too, both times with a neon yellow workman’s vest hanging behind the driver’s seat and a traffic cone sitting in the truck bed. There was also a disabled parking permit hanging from the rearview mirror, guaranteeing that this truck can stay parked at the meter indefinitely, for free.

For some people, a disabled parking permit hanging on what looks like a workman’s truck might prompt a negative reaction. Others may be more kindhearted; maybe the driver had to transport a disabled family member somewhere. Maybe it belongs to a workman who got hurt. However, a quick glance down the row of parked cars might make anyone into a skeptic.

Oakland North found that 44 percent of parked cars surveyed in downtown Oakland and Chinatown on Wednesday carried disabled parking placards. That’s 107 of the 245 cars that were parked on parts of Broadway, Franklin, and Clay Streets, as well as Eighth through 14^th Streets.

That’s an exceptionally high ratio, considering that last year the California Department of Motor Vehicles allowed enough placards to exempt 9 percent of the cars and trucks registered in Alameda County – about 100,000 placards – according to statistics provided by the DMV. The total number of placards in the system in California and in Alameda County have both roughly doubled in the last ten years. The tags hang from the vehicles’ rearview mirrors, allowing drivers to park for an unlimited time at blue curbs and meters within Oakland, the latter otherwise priced at $2 per hour.

Placard fraud costs the city income in meters and parking tickets. Furthermore, because cars bearing placards have unlimited time and don’t need to be moved every hour or two, fraud prevents parking turnover. That can severely limit parking options for everyone, disabled or not. “The parking placard needs to be of value and be there for people who need it,” said Bryon MacDonald, 64, program director for the California Work Incentives Initiative at the World Institute on Disability in downtown Oakland.

The city is also aware of this problem. “In downtown Oakland alone, several hundred vehicles displaying disabled person parking placards are parked at metered spaces on a daily basis. It appears that many drivers and/or passengers of these cars are improperly using disabled person parking placards issued by the DMV,” wrote the City Administrator’s office in a statement issued November 2009. The statement said that the City Council estimated fraud costs Oakland $150,000 in yearly parking revenue.

But it can be hard to tell when placards are being fraudulently used. “When you open the hood on this issue, there are more issues,” warned MacDonald about looking into the legitimacy of placard users. He’s an amputee with a wooden foot. “When I wear long pants, no one has a clue that I’m an amputee or have a disability,” MacDonald said. He’s worried that people might mistakenly believe legitimately disabled drivers or passengers are illegally using placards. Those with chronic fatigue or a mental disability, like a fear of crowds or tight places, have symptoms invisible to strangers, he noted.

Furthermore, MacDonald wondered about Oakland North’s counting, pointing out that many people pay to park in private lots downtown, but anyone with a disabled placard would choose only to park on the street, where it’s free. “The street parking nets a disproportionate share of placards,” he said.

Nonetheless, the city of Oakland has acknowledged widespread placard fraud in recent years, a direct result of the increasing cost of parking in some neighborhoods.

Yet Oakland police have cited only a handful of drivers for improperly using the placards since last July. Improper placard use is a misdemeanor that requires a court appearance and can result in a fine of a few hundred dollars. Three police stings netted 29 violators since July, 2009, about 35 percent of the 83 people who were questioned.

The stings – roughly four hours long – involve officers stopping placard users seen entering or exiting cars and asking them for identification proving that the placard belongs to them, according to Jeff Thomason, an Oakland police spokesman.

Most of the fraud is misuse by a family member of the legitimate placard holder or a person using an expired placard, Thomason said. However, the police can’t address the question of whether there’s fraud in the DMV application process. It turns out, neither can the California DMV.

The DMV requires a doctor or certain approved medical staff– this can be a nurse practitioner or chiropractor, for example – to sign the form that the applicant sends in. The DMV doesn’t require those missing limbs to have a doctor’s note; they may merely appear in person at their local DMV office. However, the DMV doesn’t have the staff to double check the roughly 2.5 million placards issued in California or call medical professionals back to verify signatures, according to Jan Mendoza, a DMV spokesperson. Also, the DMV can’t scrutinize whether someone needs a placard. That’s for medical staff to decide, Mendoza said. She said it’s up to individual cities and counties to prosecute fraud.

Pursuing any kind of fraud costs money and could give people a negative perception of the disabled, but there are other ways to address the proliferation of placards. Oakland doesn’t have to allow unlimited free parking to the disabled at meters.

“It’s a nice benefit, but I don’t necessarily need free parking,” said Susan Henderson, director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund in Berkeley. She said that it would be possible to give a time limit – perhaps four hours instead of the regular two – or make disabled people pay for parking, as is done in other cities.

Henderson immediately amended that by saying that the eliminating the free parking might be detrimental to disabled people who are in a tight financial situation. “People who need free or reduced cost would be dismayed,” she said.

“You don’t want to wreck the whole program because there’s some fraud going on,” Henderson cautioned. She said that what really irks disabled people is a car without a placard parked illegally in a blue spot.

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Teresa Rowe and Kristin Orbin have waited in line to get married at San Francisco City Hall two times in the past two weeks and were planning on a third. When Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled to strike down Proposition 8 on August 4, saying that the same-sex marriage ban was discriminatory and unconstitutional, the couple was elated. “We were in San Francisco and we followed the crowd to City Hall to see what would happen,” says Rowe.

Proposition 8 decision celebration in San Francisco. Photo by Steve Rhodes.

They weren’t able to get married that day because Walker issued a stay on his ruling, preventing same-sex couples from marrying immediately. But a week later, on August 12, Walker made a decision to lift the stay—couples, including Rowe and Orbin, again lined up at San Francisco City Hall hoping that marriage licenses would be issued. Instead, Walker’s ruling specified that same-sex couples couldn’t get married in California until August 18 at 5 pm. Once again, couples who had hoped to tie the knot in California had to wait and many began to plan ceremonies for this week. “We were planning for the 18th,” says Rowe. “Our maid of honor was driving up from Coalinga.”

But a few days before they intended to marry, word went out that marriage licenses wouldn’t be issued after all. Attorneys for Proposition 8’s proponents had swiftly appealed Walker’s ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 16, the Ninth Circuit imposed another stay on same-sex marriage that will last until at least the end of the year, when the court will hear the proponents’ appeal.

Gay couples have been caught up in this back-and-forth with the courts for several years. Throughout the month of February, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, along with other city and county officials, issued 4,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Six months later, the California Supreme Court ruled that those marriages weren’t valid. Then in May, 2008, the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage; 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the following six months. That November, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to say, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” And a ban on gay marriage went back into effect, although the marriages of those 18,000 are still recognized by the state.

“It has been an emotional rollercoaster,” says Rowe. “These past two weeks there was the glimmer of light of the end of tunnel and we thought, ‘We are finally going to get married.’” Rowe says she met her fiancée in 2004 at the Church of the Nazarene in Coalinga, California. They were both youth pastors and started working on the church’s youth ministry together. “I knew I was gay,” says Rowe, “but tried to pretend I wasn’t,” because she knew the church wouldn’t approve.

Rowe and Orbin became friends, then roommates. After a while, Rowe says, “I couldn’t take it anymore and had to tell her I was in love with her. I thought she would walk away and not be my friend anymore—but to my surprise, she didn’t.”

That was April 24, 2006—they’ve been together ever since and now they live in Suisun City and are planning to move to San Francisco next month. Rowe says that she watched all the marriages that happened in 2004 as a closeted lesbian. By the time same-sex marriage became legal again, in 2008, she and Orbin were ready to get married. However, Orbin became extremely ill, was hospitalized and continued to be sick during the months when same-sex marriage was legal. “In the midst of that we couldn’t imagine planning a wedding,” Rowe says. “I wanted to give her the marriage of her dreams.”

Proposition 8 decision celebration rally at San Francisco City Hall. Photo by Steve Rhodes.

When Proposition 8 passed and they realized they had missed their chance, Rowe says, “We decided that when marriage was legal, we’d run out and go ahead and get married and plan the wedding later.” That’s why they’ve been eagerly down at City Hall several times in the past two weeks hoping that they could finally tie the knot. “It was with me on phone with my grandma and Kristen on the phone with her mom. We were saying ‘Hey we’re gonna be married, maybe in twenty minutes,’” says Rowe. “Then thirty minutes later, we’d be calling back to say, ‘No, we’re not.’”

According to Davina Kotulski, the former executive director of the Oakland-based organization Marriage Equality USA, and author of Why You Should give a Damn About Gay Marriage, the battle for same-sex marriage rights is about equality. The underlying meaning of Proposition 8, she says, is “You are not an equal part of society and you’re not entitled to the same rights and benefits. It’s saying your love is less and that heterosexual love is superior.”

Kotulski has been married to her wife, Molly McKay—Media Director for Marriage Equality USA—since 2008. Prior to that, they were one of the 4,000 couples to marry in California in 2004 and have their marriage later invalidated by the state. For Kotulski, domestic partnerships, civil unions or registered partners are not the same as marriage. “They’re not on par emotionally or legally with marriage,” she says. “Marriage is very simple and it’s recognized all over the world.”

The fact that same-sex marriage has once again been stayed in California doesn’t completely discourage Kotulski. “I consider it another speed bump in the road to equality,” she says. “The good news is the fact that the appellate court is going to have a hearing in December.” Ninth Circuit cases can sometimes take up to two years to be heard, but this court’s panel—Judges Edward Leavy, Michael Hawkins and Sidney Thomas—have sped up the process on the case’s appeal, which is now scheduled for the week of December 6.

Rowe and Orbin also remain optimistic about one day being able to get married. “When the [most recent] stay got issued, the first words out of my mouth were ‘December is a good month for a wedding,’” Rowe says. “History is on our side, justice is on our side, and we believe—in the end—love is going to prevail.”

Oakland’s gearing up for mayoral election season again, with thirteen – strike that – ten candidates competing for Mayor Ron Dellums’ spot.

Last week after Wednesday’s filing deadline, it was widely reported that 13 people were running for mayor of Oakland. However, the City Clerk excluded three candidates who filed nomination papers because they each had an insufficient number of validated signatures.

Oakland requires each would-be mayor to pay $300 to declare themselves as a candidate, as well as provide 50 valid signatures from Oakland residents, along with proof that they have been registered to vote in Oakland for the past 30 days. Niki Okuk, Tim Brown, and Sharika Gregory all told Oakland North that enough of their signatures were thrown out to disqualify them for the election. Dellums announced on August 4 that he wouldn’t run for another term.

So, who’s left? Here is a rundown of the ten remaining candidates, in alphabetical order, based on biographical details provided by the candidates or their campaigns.

Terence Candell:

He’s 47, a Democrat, and directs Candell’s College Preparatory Academy, his own education business. Last week, various media reported – incorrectly – that he was a minister, perhaps because Candell announced that he has widespread support from Oakland’s Baptist churches. He has never previously run for political office and lives in the Eastmont neighborhood. He has a B.A. in politics from UC Santa Cruz, an M.A. in education from the Western Institute for Social Research, and a Ph.D. in education from University of Bedford, an online university based in England.

Arnold Fields:

Fields is 44, an Independent, and a registered real estate broker. He calls himself an affordable housing advocate and runs a business renovating old buildings and renting them out. He and his wife own Revolution Café on 7^th Street in West Oakland. Fields ran for Oakland mayor in 2006 and received 1 percent of the votes, coming in fifth. He lives in the Dimond neighborhood. Fields attended real estate broker school.

Greg Harland:

Harland is 63 years old, retired, and has been an entrepreneur in clothing manufacture, computers, and restaurants, according to his campaign website. He didn’t reply to Oakland North’s request for more information. He lives in the Montclair area, and his website says he attended Merritt College and was trained as a scuba diving instructor at the Professional Diving Instructors Corporation in Monterey.

Marcie Hodge:

A 36-year-old Democrat, Hodge is on the board of trustees for the Peralta Community Colleges. She’s been a marriage and family therapist and a public school teacher. She also served on the Oakland Budget Advisory Committee and lives near Chabot Regional Park. She went to Cal State Hayward and also has a masters in counseling psychology from Holy Names College, as well as a Ph.D. in organizational psychology from Alliant University.

Rebecca Kaplan:

Kaplan, 39, is the first openly lesbian member of the Oakland City Council, currently serving as the councilmember-at-large. She’s a Democrat and, before being elected in 2008, worked for the California legislature and for the Oakland City Attorney’s office, as well as serving on the board of directors for AC Transit. She lives in Jack London Square. Kaplan has a B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.A. in urban and environmental policy from Tufts University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Don Macleay:

Macleay is 52 and a 15-year member of the Green Party. He grew up in Canada and has never run for political office or worked for the U.S. government, though he once worked for the government of Nicaragua. He used to be a machinist but now owns and manages a small computer networking business in Oakland. Macleay lives in Temescal and attended Laney College and San Francisco State, where he received a B.A. in Liberal Studies.

Don Perata:

At 65, Perata, a Democrat, has had the longest political record of all the candidates. He was a civics teacher before his political career began, according to his campaign. Perata joined the Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors in 1986 and served as a State Assembly representative for Oakland, Piedmont and Alameda from 1996 to 1998, when he was elected to the California State Senate. In the Senate he served until 2008, at times as the Senate President Pro Tem. Perata’s already been endorsed by Jerry Brown, Willie Brown, and Dianne Feinstein. He lives in the Montclair and has a B.A. in Literature and Theology from St. Mary’s College.

Jean Quan:

Quan, 60, is a Democrat and the first Asian-American woman to be elected to the Oakland City Council. She’s in her second term on the council, representing District 4. She is on a handful of the council’s committees and works with several other groups in city government; she also chairs the board of directors for the Chabot Space and Science Center. Quan began her political career through working with her children’s school and served on the Oakland school board for two terms, beginning in 1989. She lives in Oakmore. Quan received a B.A. in Ethnic Studies from UC Berkeley, though she was suspended because of her participation in the 1969 Third World Strike, part of the – eventually successful – effort to create an ethnic studies department.

Joe Tuman:

Tuman, 51, is a Democrat and a professor at San Francisco State University teaching politics, law, and communications. He’s been a speechwriter and political consultant for many years, and published several books, including Freedom of Expression in the Marketplace of Ideas (Sage, 2011), Communicating Terror; The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terror and Political Communication in American Campaigns.  Though Tuman has taught classes about politics and been paid to be a political consultant, he has never run for office himself.  He lives in the Crocker Highlands. He has a B.A. in political science from UC Berkeley and a J.D. from Boalt School of Law at UC Berkeley.

Larry Lionel Young, Jr.:

Young is, indeed, the youngest candidate at age 30. Registered Independent, he works for Prudential California as a real estate agent but has been a substitute teacher in Oakland’s public schools for four years. He has also worked in adult education and at the West County and Marsh Creek detention centers.  He lives in Adam’s Point and has a B.A. in speech communication from Cal Poly and an MBA from the University of Phoenix.

This version of the story has been corrected. A previous version stated incorrectly that Donald Macleay worked for the Canadian government.

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

The proposition’s supporters are still planning to appeal Walker’s overturn of Proposition 8 to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

California’s State Supreme Court briefly legalized same-sex marriage in 2008; in the following six months, about 18,000 couples married, before voters approved Proposition 8 that November with 52 percent of the vote. Proposition 8 added a provision to the state constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Two same-sex couples sued soon thereafter, arguing that the amendment violated their right to equal protection under the law. Closing arguments in the subsequent court case, Perry vs. Schwarzenneger, were completed this June before Judge Walker.

The 18,000 marriages held during the six months before the passage of Proposition 8 are considered valid by the state, but other same-sex couples have been barred from marrying since then. Walker ruled to overturn Proposition 8 on August 4, but also issued a stay preventing same-sex marriages from taking place immediately. Today’s ruling states that the temporary stay will be lifted on August 18. You can read the full PDF text of the ruling here.

The gubernatorial campaign for Jerry Brown, currently California Attorney General and former Oakland mayor, who famously refused to defend Proposition 8 in 2008, this afternoon Tweeted the following message and quote: “A step in the right direction. ‘Equality is the soul of liberty; there is, in fact, no liberty without it.’ -Frances Wright”

The press release relied on some wishful thinking.

Oakland Community Action Network, a small community group headed by resident Wilson Riles, hoped to take advantage of Wednesday’s filing deadline to influence the conversation in the upcoming mayoral election. They invited candidates to talk about creating a local currency in Oakland.

“Each will speak briefly on their candidacies and their support for the Alternative Currency for Oakland Residents and Neighbors (ACORN),” wrote the group in its press release. But the candidates didn’t exactly stick to the plan.

Riles’s idea for “alternative currency” originates from the push for a city identification card that would benefit undocumented immigrants but would also have the side effect of singling them out. He thinks that the card would get a wider audience if it’s digitally linked to a local Oakland currency, the acorn, which would also encourage residents to keep their dollars circulating within the city. (Read more about acorns here.)

It’s an idea that has caught on in other cities and regions worldwide, but implementing the money – which the group wants to name after the fruit of the oak tree and not a political group popularly slammed by Fox News – wasn’t really in the forefront of the mayoral candidates’ minds.

As a man practiced Qigong exercises and a vagrant finished up a breakfast of crackers in front of City Hall, six candidates for Oakland mayor and their respective entourages arrived to participate in the Oakland Community Action Network event, basically just a podium and microphone facing the building. All told it was a group of about 80 people, including candidates, supporters, press, and children.

At least twenty of the attendees were too young to vote; candidate Terrence Candell brought several young supporters and candidate Larry Lionel Young, Jr., a teacher, brought his class, outfitted with signs supporting his candidacy.

Before the speeches began, Zachary Running Wolf, a 2008 Berkeley mayoral candidate, waved a bunch of burning sage to consecrate both the podium and Wilson Riles’s head. Riles didn’t speak about the currency.

The six candidates, most in suits, were ready to take advantage of their respective three minutes in front of a smattering of local TV cameras and reporters, but most were uninterested in focusing on currency or the Oakland Community Action Network. They talked in broad strokes and platitudes about Oakland and its problems, and they elaborated upon their own qualifications for the job.

Candidate Greg Harland, a local serial entrepreneur, went first. He was against the currency, explaining that the city should instead focus on resolving its “shopper-unfriendly environment,” “not having the right mix of stores,” and parking inferior to Emeryville’s.

Joseph Tuman at the podium.

Joseph Tuman, a professor at San Francisco State, was neither for nor against the currency, because he’d just learned about the idea. “Until I understand the details of that better, I can’t say I’d endorse that today,” he said.

Tuman then went on to rail against Oakland’s “unacceptable” problems, like bad schools and poverty, pausing when the wind caused too much noise in the microphone. “See, God’s agreeing with me,” he said after the sound stopped, looking up.

Donald L. Macleay, the official Green Party candidate, supported the proposal with the caveat that “there’s a lot of ifs, ands, and buts.”

Orlando Johnson, who works with the Oakland Community Action Network and was dressed in unusually-textured green pants, launched into a sweet and heartfelt speech about how he didn’t have a lot of formal education and that world experience should count, adding no one should be seen as fundamentally better than anyone else. He then announced that he was dropping out of the race.

Jean Quan, who probably had the most supporters present who were of voting age, used her time at the podium to insinuate something about the deep pockets of her rivals. “Is Oakland for sale?” she asked. “What kind of race is this going to be?”

At the end of her three minutes, after the moderator reminded her to comment on the idea of an alternative currency, Quan unceremoniously tacked on her support, saying she was “working on some ideas.”

Orlando Johnson bows out of the race.

“I have touched some 200,000 people,” Terrence Candell boomed after sidling up to the podium to a few scattered cheers, though it wasn’t clear if he meant Oakland residents or another group.

Candell was the biggest proponent of establishing Oakland’s own currency, and he said he wanted to do much more, like charging a one percent tax on commuters who work in Oakland but live elsewhere. He also said he wants to add a toll plaza on the East Bay side of the Bay Bridge “so people not only pay for San Francisco – so we can make money for our own city.” Candell was apparently unaware that bridge tolls are administered by the Bay Area Toll Authority and the state agency Caltrans, not by individual cities.

Larry Lionel Young, Jr. spoke last, and his supporters mostly appeared to be too young to vote. He supported Candell’s idea of a commuter tax but wasn’t willing to back the Oakland currency just yet. He spoke confidently of the need to help youth. “You can’t police your way out of crime,” he said. He also said he wanted people to really live and function within the city, though it was unclear if he was implying that some people reside in Oakland and do too much living in other cities, or if he was accusing residents  of keeping to themselves. “If Oakland is good enough to live in, then Oakland is good enough to live in,” Young said.

Both Don Perata and Rebecca Kaplan, considered among the frontrunners in the race, did not attend.

After the press conference, candidates and press networked briefly, trying to make sense of what had happened and which candidate was which. Some double-checked that Orlando Johnson had actually dropped out of the race. As the attendees slowly dispersed, a small group of activists handed out flyers reminding people not to forget Oscar Grant.

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

On Wednesday, joyous crowds took to the streets of San Francisco after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, the ban against same-sex marriage, writing that the ban violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

“Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents,” Walker wrote in the third part of the 136-page order. ”Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

In Oakland, the reaction was more subdued and less organized than in San Francisco, in part because many of those who wanted to celebrate went to San Francisco for a planned march and rally. Both the Bench and Bar and the White Horse – Oakland’s most prominent gay bars – were relatively quiet on Wednesday evening. The people gathered there had come for a drink as they might on any night, rather than to celebrate the judge’s ruling, but many were still very happy to hear of Proposition 8’s overturn.

“I started crying,” said Johnny Cabral said as he sat at the White Horse Inn on Telegraph Avenue. He said it was too late for him to get married because his long-time partner passed away this January, but he was hopeful for others.

California’s State Supreme Court briefly legalized same-sex marriage in 2008; in the following six months, about 18,000 couples married, before voters approved Proposition 8 that November with 52 percent of the vote. Proposition 8 added a provision to the state constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Two same-sex couples sued soon thereafter, arguing that the amendment violated their right to equal protection under the law. Closing arguments in the subsequent court case, Perry vs. Schwarzenneger, were completed this June.

The 18,000 marriages held during the six months before the passage of Proposition 8 are considered valid by the state, but other same-sex couples have been barred from marrying, a confusing legal mismatch.

“After the first round, we all celebrated,” Cabral said about day same-sex marriage was legalized in 2008. “Then what happened?” He’s now more cautiously optimistic.

Reactions from opponents of Proposition 8 have spanned from boisterous to tentative; same-sex marriage supporters know the ruling will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, starting another round of waiting and wondering. Walker has ordered an indefinite stay on his own injunction, meaning that same-sex couples cannot marry in California just yet.

Nonetheless it was welcome news to many who were out in Oakland on Wednesday night.

“I’m ecstatic,” said Catherine Ficcardi, a friend of Cabral’s who was socializing in the back of the bar.

White Horse patron Kate Warren singled out Judge Walker for praise. “I applaud his bravery,” she said as she sat at the White Horse patio Wednesday evening. “The language of his decision positions us well to take the next step,” she said.

Some Oakland politicians also applauded the decision. “Today our legal system proclaimed a new era of equality under the law in California,” read a statement issued by the office of Rebecca Kaplan, Oakland’s first openly lesbian city council member. Oakland has the largest number of lesbian-headed households in the nation. Kaplan’s also running for mayor this November.

A tweet from her opponent, former State Senate President Don Perata, was similarly positive. “Once again, the courts have ruled to support a basic human right. It would be respectful & patriotic for the plaintiffs to go away quietly,” his campaign tweeted.

Former Oakland mayor Jerry Brown, now the state’s attorney general and a gubernatorial candidate, famously decided to oppose the proposition in December, 2008, after he initially agreed to support and defend it. Today, his office’s website carried a supportive message: “In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it,” Brown wrote.

There was little public sense of opposition to the ruling in Oakland Wednesday night, but some Proposition 8 supporters did go to San Francisco to register their disagreement at the courthouse. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – also known as the Mormon Church – in Salt Lake City also issued a statement that it “regrets today’s decision.”

However, those celebrating in Oakland seemed undaunted by the prospect of the legal battle ahead. “I think the only way this is going to be resolved is through the Supreme Court,” said Donald Cooper, who was having a drink early Wednesday evening in the sparsely-attended Bench and Bar in Uptown Oakland. “It’s a tremendous first step, part of a long range civil rights journey.”

Jealousy, a female impersonator who performs at the Bench and Bar, joined Cooper in the conversation, adding, “I know that, even if this gets overturned again, we’ll win in the end.”

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Judy Lee has already begun packing her boxes. Full of art supplies and Shel Silverstein books, the boxes sat neatly stacked near the wall of her spacious classroom at the Piedmont Avenue Early Childhood Development Center on Wednesday, a telltale sign of the center’s imminent closure.

After Friday, the doors will close indefinitely at the Piedmont center and seven other Childhood Development Centers that offer preschool, as well as summer and after school programs to some 900 Oakland children. The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is closing seven, of 31 total centers, because of a potential $13 million budget cut for early childhood education. The eighth center to be closed, Parker Childhood Development Center in the Eastmont neighborhood, is a victim of earlier budget cuts.

On top of the closures, all summer programs, and before and after school care for elementary school children will be cut throughout the district, and indeed, throughout the state.

In a desperate attempt to keep open the centers—among the few options for affordable childcare for many parents—some parents and teachers plan to hold class outside next week or even take over the centers, although the OUSD has nixed these plans because of liability and contract concerns.

At Piedmont, parents and staff seem to still be in shock from the announcement that came just two weeks ago. “It’s been very hard for parents, very hard for staff because it hit us, just, bam,” said Lee, slapping her hands together softly.

In the center’s small office, Dean Brown, the secretary, and Ricki Hannah, who runs the summer program for kindergarten through third grade aged children, chatted dejectedly about the closure.

Brenda Bruner teaches the summer program at Piedmont. "It's hard," said Bruner of the center's closure. "It's such a nurturing place."

“We’ve been told to pack our stuff, so we’re packing our stuff,” said Hannah.

“I’ve been getting so many calls from parents,” said Brown. “One parent said ‘You’re giving us two weeks notice like it was a job.’” The parent told Brown she had a job, and would have to scramble to find care for her children during work hours. “She just went off,” said Brown.

As the state struggles to close a $19 billion budget gap, OUSD’s Early Childhood Education Department, which runs the centers, faces a potential 73 percent reduction in state funding—$13 million of its total $18 million annual budget. The proposed cuts are part of Governor Schwarzenegger’s revised budget proposal, released in May. The cuts would come on top of $110 million that’s already being shaved from OUSD’s overall funding.

The state budget is now being hashed out in the legislature, and funding for the childcare centers could be restored in the final budget deal. But until a compromise is met—and some say that may not happen until after the November elections—the targeted centers are closing their doors indefinitely. “At this point it would take a Hail Mary to keep the centers open,” said Troy Flint, director of public relations for OUSD.

Flint said the district has explored a number of options for keeping the childcare centers open, but none are viable within the budget and timing constraints. Unlike the state government, which has no strict deadline for passing a budget and can issue IOUs, the school district had to submit its budget to the county before the beginning of the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

OUSD has managed to keep the childcare centers running until now by shifting funds from adult education. High ranking, non-unionized staff have also taken pay cuts and furlough days to help free up money for the programs, according to Flint.

Lee—who is one of two head teachers at the Piedmont center, and has been teaching there for 21 years—is one of 39 teachers who will be out of a job come Monday. Her job could be reinstated if funding is restored to the program, but she won’t know until the governor signs his name to the budget bill. In the meantime, she’s stuck in labor limbo.

“I have to decide, well, should I apply for a job or shouldn’t I? And if I do, I have to tell my boss, ‘Well, I might leave in a few months if my job reappears,’” she said. She and other teachers who have been laid off can substitute teach in the interim, which Lee said she would likely do. Other employees will be relocated to one of the district’s 23 remaining Childhood Development Centers.

For many parents whose children attend the centers, the closures mean a rushed search for childcare. Preschool age children will have the option of attending one of the 23 Early Childhood Development Centers that escaped the cuts. But summer school, and before and after school programs for elementary school age children have been cut completely from all centers.

The playground at Piedmont will be empty come Monday.

Rose Baty, a medical assistant at Kaiser, has three elementary school age children who attend the Piedmont center, for both the summer program, and the before and after school programs that used to be offered during the school year.

“Right now, I seriously have no options,” said Baty, who usually drops off her children before going to work, and picks them up on her way home. “I’m asking my old neighbor to take care of them.” She hopes that plan will work for the rest of the summer, but when asked what she’ll do once school starts, she shrugged helplessly. “There’s no plans as of yet.”

Several miles away at the Manzanita Early Childhood Center—which is also scheduled to close on Friday—a group of some thirty parents and teachers were engaged in a desperate planning session to keep it and other centers from closing. The group Oakland Parents Together, which organized the meeting, is planning a “people’s takeover” of several of the centers come Monday, including Santa Fe in West Oakland, Manzanita in the Meadow Brook neighborhood, and Hintil Kuu Ka in the East Oakland hills. Highland Early Childhood Center, near the Oakland Coliseum, may also be included in the “takeover.”

“At any cost, we’re going to open those centers on Monday,” said Judith Namoki, education advocate for Oakland Parents Together. “We’re encouraging parents to keep bringing their kids to those centers.”

Just how the group plans to keep the centers open is still in the works. At a meeting held last week, the group voted to have parents and volunteers run the centers, and to solicit funds from the Oakland community to pay for operational costs, in order “to send a strong message of protest to the governor and the legislature,” according to the group’s manifesto.   

But the district has since rejected the idea. Flint, the OUSD spokesman, said the district explored the option but ruled it out because of liability issues. “We completely support this idea in principle and applaud the enthusiasm and commitment of the parents, but it would put us at serious risk,” Flint said.

Additionally, he said, allowing non-licensed individuals to run the centers could jeopardize the district’s state contract to operate all the Childhood Development Centers. “That would be even more harmful to the parents in the long run.”

Oakland Parents Together is trying to work around those issues, by offering to provide its own liability insurance for activities at the centers, and soliciting help from licensed teachers who are on summer vacation or who have been recently laid off. If necessary, at least one parent said she was ready to lock herself to the door of the Manzanita center on Monday to make her point.

“I’ve made a commitment, I’m going to be here no matter what,” said Laurice Brown, whose five children attend the Manzanita center. “This is going to be like a 1960s movement.”

Shirley Guevara, a teacher who was laid off two weeks ago from the Hintil Kuu Ka Childhood Development Center, said she planned to hold class outside on Monday, with the help of parents and volunteers. “We’ll have a nature school,” she said. “We’ll have balls and books, paper, pencils, crayons. We’re ready.”

Back at Piedmont, the mood was more defeated than revolutionary. While the kids took their midday nap in another room, Lee flipped somberly through papers as classical music played in the background.

“I think the saddest part of it all is that OUSD is going in the right direction in recognizing the importance of preschool and early childhood development,” Lee said, “but if the state doesn’t back you up with the money, it’s really hard.”

Lee said she planned to make cupcakes for the kids on their last day and a fruit tart for the staff. “It’s hard enough, I didn’t want to make it a big deal.”

Flint from OUSD said he hoped Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed gutting of early childhood education was a “bluff or a gambit,” as some have speculated, to try and wrest a compromise from legislators on other, less controversial parts of the budget.

“We’re hoping this downsize isn’t permanent,” said Flint, “but certainly you have to prepare for the worst.”

—

UPDATE!

The Bay Citizen reports Friday, July 30 that the district made a last minute reallocation of federal stimulus funds, and seven centers (excluding Parker) will remain open until the end of August. Read the story here: http://www.baycitizen.org/education/story/oakland-child-care-centers-remain-open/

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

On Monday night the Oakland City Council approved the addition of four initiatives to the city’s November ballot, all geared towards bringing revenue into the cash-strapped city.

The process of deciding which initiatives to accept for the ballot required so much public comment and council debate that it lasted two full evenings. After dismissing its meeting last Thursday night without taking a vote, on Monday the council voted to put three taxes on the November ballot: one for marijuana cultivation and distribution, one for telephone access and trunk lines, and a parcel tax for each residence. Voters will also be allowed to vote on an amendment to Measure Y, the 2004 ordinance that allowed the city to receive $20 million for police, fire, and violence prevention programs if it employed 739 police officers.

The council voted 5 to 0 to place a measure on the November ballot to tax marijuana dispensaries and cultivation at 5 percent across the board. Councilmembers Jane Brunner, Desley Brooks, Ignacio De La Fuente, Patricia Kernighan, and Larry Reid all voted in favor of the tax; Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan, Nancy Nadel, and Jean Quan abstained. Should Proposition 19 — the statewide initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana — pass, the council placed a provision in the measure asking Oakland voters to approve a 10 percent tax on all non-medical marijuana sales in the city.

Oakland currently taxes medical marijuana dispensaries at 1.8 percent. This morning the city council will take a final vote on an ordinance that would permit four large-scale marijuana growers to operate within city limits. The ordinance passed last week on first read. These large-scale grow operations would subject to the 5 percent tax if voters pass it.

“[Oakland will] be the first one to set the tone,” said De La Fuente on why both cannabis cultivation and dispensaries should be taxed at 5 percent. “And we’ll get the benefit of revenue that we desperately, desperately need.”

The council voted down a compromise offered by Quan, which would have taxed medical marijuana dispensaries at 2.5 percent rather than 5 percent. “I just think we don’t need to set the [dispensary] tax twice as high as the city next door,” Quan said, referring to Berkeley, whose voters will also go to the polls in the fall and face a 2.5 percent dispensary tax on their ballot.

Councilmembers Kaplan, Kernighan, Nadel, and Quan voted in favor of the amendment, with councilmembers Brooks, De La Fuente, and Reed voting against, arguing that the dispensaries are established taxpaying businesses and could afford the tax. Council president Brunner abstained from the vote.

The council unanimously voted to place a Measure Y amendment on the November ballot. If voters approve the measure, the city will retain the $20 million it received in taxes without being required to maintain a predetermined number of police officers. If a Measure Y amendment doesn’t pass, the city will be forced to lay off another 122 police officers in January, bringing the number of police officers below 600. The city already laid of 80 officers this July.

Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan placed a provision in the measure that will ensure the return of problem solving officers to the neighborhood community policing beats. Councilmember Quan noted they “are the officers the voters know the best.”

A monthly telephone access line tax of $1.99 per phone and $13 per business trunk line will also be on the ballot in November; cell phones will be included in the assessment. Taxes raised would be allocated to the city’s General Fund and could be used to rehire laid off police officers. The measure passed 7 to 1, with De La Fuente voting against it.

But the greatest controversy and debate amongst the council Monday came in discussing the proposed parcel tax. The council voted 5 to 3 to put a four-year, $360 parcel tax per residential property on the ballot, designed to help raise money to fund police department staffing. The council announced it had reached an agreement with the Oakland Police Officers’ Association (OPOA) for officers to gradually contribute 9 percent to their pensions in exchange for the promise of no more layoffs for three years. Supporters of the ballot measure said that only way the city can fulfill the promise is with the additional revenue raised by the parcel tax.

If the parcel tax were to pass, Oakland police officers would start contributing 4 percent to their pension funds as early as January 2011. Their contributions would increase to 7 percent for fiscal year 2011-12 and would hit 9 percent in fiscal year 2012-13. Oakland police officers currently contribute nothing to their pensions, but were slated to start contributing 2 percent by the year 2012.

Councilmembers Kaplan, Brooks, and De La Fuente voted against the parcel tax, with De La Fuente promising the council to actively campaign against it. He argues that the parcel tax doesn’t address the city’s fundamental budget deficit or structural spending problems.  “I think $360, especially in a single family home and no matter the value of the home, is really going to push even more people over the edge,” he said. “We are not doing anything else except raising taxes. We are not looking at any other structural changes. We are not looking at modifying what we do. I think that at some point the train will derail and I don’t think it is going to take that long.”

Councilmember Brooks agreed. “I think we need to look at a different way to do this, but I’m not willing to burden the residents of Oakland with extra [taxes] when they said they are not going to do this,” she said.

It was widely acknowledged by the council that the parcel tax is unlikely to pass in the fall, but many councilmembers voted for it to let Oakland voters decide what they will and will not pay for. “This gives the public the opportunity to make that evaluation rather than us making it for them,” said Nadel.

As Brunner pointed out, putting the tax on the ballot was the only way to reach the long-awaited compromise with the police union. “If we do not do anything, if the revenue doesn’t pass and the amendments don’t pass, we are laying off [an additional] 122 police officers,” she said. “We will have laid 200 police officers when crime has gone down and the chief is really changing things. Public safety is parks and recreation, but public safety is also the police department.”

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.