Skip to content

Oakland officials react to voters’ rejection of ballot measures

on November 17, 2011

Oaklanders voted Tuesday to reject three ballot measures, which would have imposed an $80 parcel tax on homeowners to hire more police officers, extended the deadline for police and firefighter pension payments to stabilize the city budget, and changed the city attorney from an elected to an appointed position.

After 24 percent of Oakland’s registered voters mailed in ballots for the special election, all three measures—H (city attorney), I (parcel tax) and J (pension fund reform)—were defeated.

We we’re not surprised by the turnout,” said Frank Castro, a Rockridge resident and spokesman for Make Oakland Better Now, a citizen organization that drafts and recommends proposals to the Oakland government on public safety, public works and budget issues.  “This is an off-year and it came one week after a statewide election. I think the council decided to run the elections during this time because they wanted a low participation. They wanted to increase their chances of the measures passing, but it didn’t work.”

The results of the election have prompted different reactions from city officials. Mayor Jean Quan, who proposed the Measure I parcel tax to the City Council last summer, released a statement on November 15 which said that, because the measure did not pass, city officials will not be able to restore senior centers to full day services, add tree and road crews, upgrade internet access at libraries, or upgrade what she called “critical” police technology—improvements she had proposed to make with revenue generated from the parcel tax.

But the most “critical impact,” she said, is that “without the funding for additional police academies we will have a hard time maintaining police staffing levels.”

Measure I was set to raise $55 million in five years to combat a projected $74 million budget deficit for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. During a city council meeting last July, Quan proposed the special elections and put Measure I on the ballot, noting that although the city would have to spend $700,000 to run the elections, passing the parcel tax measure would have brought in an extra $55 million to the city.

That day the council voted 7-1 to approve the special elections. Councilmember Libby Schaaf (District 4) opposed the proposal. “I was the only councilmember that constantly spoke against calling the elections,” Schaaf said. “I’m disappointed on the financial loss caused by the elections. It was a waste of city resources.”

Schaaf said she wasn’t surprised about the failure of the three measures, even though she wrote Measure J, a pension fund reform proposal that received approval from 46.77 percent of voters and was rejected by 53.23 percent of voters.

I think it’s confusing, that’s why it failed,” she said. “It’s a complicated issue, but it was the measure that proposed the most modest adjustments to the city budget. I think that is why it was the closest to passing.” She said she will modify the measure, to make it more explicit, and propose it again to the city council.

Schaaf declined to say whether she felt disappointed with the failure of Measure I, but added that the measure “was not sufficient to guarantee the hiring of new police officers.”

The measure’s failure won’t have critical effects on the city council’s budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, Schaaf said. “The budget did not assume the passage of these measures,” she said. “But we still need to explore policies to restore the budget and put it back on acceptable levels.”

Castro agrees that Measure I’s failure will not have a critical effect on next year’s budget, as the budget was passed in June. “I think it was just a scare tactic,” he said.

Oakland voters also rejected Measure H, a ballot measure that would have changed the City Attorney from an elected position to one appointed by the City Council. Oakland residents will continue to elect the City Attorney directly.

City Attorney Barbara Parker, who was appointed by Mayor Quan in July after John Russo resigned to accept the job of city manager in Alameda, said in a press release about the election results that the role of the city attorney is “to provide an independent voice to play the important role of a watchdog for transparency, accountability and sound leadership at City Hall.”

Many opponents to measure H argued that if the city attorney became an appointed position, he or she would be subject to the whims of the city council. But those in favor of Measure H used much the same logic, arguing that an elected city attorney is constantly worried about re-election.

Parker, whose current term ends in January 2013, said, “I respect and honor the voters’ decision” to keep the city attorney “accountable to the people.”

Schaaf said she had repeatedly stated her opposition to Measure H. “I’m pleased to see that Oakland voters defended their right to vote for their city attorney,” she said. “I believe the city attorney should be an elected official.”

Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente (District 5) said he had opposed all the ballot measures. People have a right to vote for the city attorney, he said of Measure H. De La Fuente said he also opposed Measure J, which would have put off “the fact that we really are getting deeper and deeper into debt,” he said. “At some point we have to recognize that, and we have to start changing.”

The biggest problem with pensions is how much they cost, De La Fuente said. The city is paying $3.2 million a month to pensions, he said, and delaying those payments is simply “pushing off the inevitable.”

With regard to Measure I, the parcel tax, De La Fuente said he would have supported it as part of a comprehensive set of structural changes. But as it was proposed, he did not support raising taxes for homeowners and businesses without doing anything else, he said.

It is unsustainable. We have to reduce expenses,” De La Fuente said. “Unfortunately one of the only ways to do this is to reduce the number of people that work for the city. Obviously nobody wants to do that — nobody wants to lay people off. But probably 90 percent of the budget is salaries and benefits.”

Jason Overman, director of communications for Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan, said it is unknown whether the city council will make changes to the budget now or in the future. Councilmembers keep a close eye on how revenue and expenditures compare to projections, he said, and will decide “if and when” changes need to be made.

It’s certainly worth noting, though, that the city did make sure there is a healthy reserve to ensure that we remain fiscally solvent even with some unforeseen expenses or revenue shortfalls,” Overman said.

The City finances remain very fragile,” said Quan’s statement. “I will continue to work with the community to find new ways to generate revenue, including economic development projects and attracting new businesses to Oakland.”

Make Oakland Better Now board member Frank Castro said the mayor and the city council have to take more responsibility for the fiscal situation.

They have to realize that they cannot go to the electorate every year and ask for a parcel tax,” he said. “They need to make long term plans in which they establish where the revenue is coming from.”

Castro said that when proposing a measure or a program, the mayor and the city council also must first evaluate its effectiveness. “When the gang injunctions were proposed in a council meeting, some of the councilmembers presented studies that showed that gang injunctions didn’t work in other cities,” he said. “I think they should do the same with other measures. If you’re going to put a lot of money into them, make sure they actually work.”


  1. david williams on November 17, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    irony abounds…

    councilmember de la fuente approved the off-season low-turnout 700,000$ special election but opposed all 3 ballot measures. ( kudos to councilmember schaaf for her wisdom and shame on the other 6. one wonders what they were thinking)

    quan supports ‘occupy’ but spends millions dismantling the camps, not counting subsequent settlements

    oakland gets a 10,700,000$ federal grant for police but pays out an average of 5,700,000 per year to settle police abuse cases, and now whines about not being able to upgrade.

    and the beat goes on. what’s your tipping point?

  2. Christopher Myers on November 17, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    hi mayor, thanks for trying to shift the onus on us for not passing something that will waste more money on more police. We don’t want more police. Police do not actually reduce crime. Good schools and hope for the future reduce crime. I’ve been mugged before, how would police possibly have stopped it? You want to have enough police to post up in every single unlit street in Oakland? No, you just think that pumping more money into the black hole of police enforcement makes your voters somehow feel safer and gets you more votes. Maybe when the whole world saw you waste over a million dollars to bust up some protesters right as 5 elementary schools were closing down, your constituency decided more police was not such a great investment. Stop playing the politics game, grow a spine, and start making Oakland better.

    • Leonard Raphael on November 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm

      Councilmember Schaaf has one thing right about her pension so called “reform” Measure J when she she says of the Measure she wrote
      “it’s confusing”

      Yes but that’s not why it failed but why it didn’t fail by a much larger margin.

      It would have nosedived by a much bigger margin if it hadn’t been written in such a bland, soothing way, with the superficial city attorney comment and the audtor’s non committal comment.

      Despite that, 53% of the voters understood Measure J better than Councilwoman Schaaf.

      Many of them knew from experience that when someone tells you don’t worry be happy that the City wants even more time than the already remaining 15 years to fund an ancient pension fund, that there is no free lunch.

      Voters had heard similar promises from the mortgage brokers and TV ads telling them the wonders of refi’s and paying later.

      Councilmember Schaaf still doesn’t get it.

      -len raphael, cpa

  3. Leonard Raphael on November 17, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Towards the end of the campaign, Quan had stopped talking about the parcel tax I as “restoring”‘ and only talked of “maintaining”.

    But she’s back to the “restoring” fiction.

    Look at your own words “Measure I was set to raise $55 million in five years to combat a projected $74 million budget deficit for the 2012-2013 fiscal year”

    You should have said Measure I was set to raise 11Mil/year for five years to combat projected 74Mil/year deficits for the indefinite future.”

    Like duh, 74-11 = 63Mill deficit each year, indefinitely. She couldn’t have maintained anything with that shortfall, let alone doing any restoring.

    Ebonics arithmetic.

    -len raphael, cpa

  4. […] By Brittany Schell and Monica Cruz-Rosas See the original story at […]

Oakland North welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Oakland North assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content.

Photo by Basil D Soufi
Oakland North

Oakland North is an online news service produced by students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and covering Oakland, California. Our goals are to improve local coverage, innovate with digital media, and listen to you–about the issues that concern you and the reporting you’d like to see in your community. Please send news tips to:

Latest Posts

Scroll To Top