City Government

City Seeks to Renew Measure Y Public Safety Tax

Published

12 years ago

April 11, 2014

Local leaders are encouraged by the results of new poll showing that most voters support renewing the city’s Measure Y parcel tax to pay for police salaries and programs to reduce violent crime and keep students in school.

The measure, which expires at the end of this year, was passed by voters in 2004 and raised about $20 million a year, based on both a $98 per year parcel tax on Oakland property and a parking tax

Joe Tuman

assessment.

The annual pot of money pays $12 million for increased policing resources, $8 million for community-based violence prevention programs and $4 million for fire department personnel to keep two fire stations open.

“There are things we should celebrate – Oaklanders overwhelming support continuing our efforts to keep us safer,” said Lynette Gibson McElhaney, speaking at Tuesday evening’s meeting of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.

However, McElhaney also sounded a cautionary note.

“We need to do more to earn the public’s trust,” she said. “We need to be very sober about what we can do. The measure needs to focus its resources in a few of the key areas where the funds will have an impact, she said.

Conducted by EMC Research for the city in March, the poll found that 82 percent of voters support continuing the measure for another 10 years, without increasing the property tax.

Only 53 percent of voters indicated they support a measure that doubles the tax to $196 a year. In order to pass, a parcel tax must receive at least two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the vote.

As in 2004, residents’ top priorities are split between improving police services and support for

crime reduction programs. The poll found that most people want the money to be spent on reducing gun violence, improving police and emergency response, support for at-risk youth and increasing high school graduation rates.

“Community safety and gun violence reduction are critical concerns for (our) members,” said Pastor Billy Dixon, Oakland Community Organizations (OCO) board member.

“We believe this measure must ensure a balanced approach between proven violence reduction strategies and law enforcement.”

The poll also found that most residents believe the city is going in the wrong direction. However, those who say the city is going in “the wrong direction” has dropped since August 2013 from 59 percent to 50 percent.

In the same period, the percent that say the city is going “in the right direction” has increased from 17 percent to 33 percent.

Asked whether they feel safer today than they did a year ago, 22 percent said safer, 33 percent did not know or said it has not changed, and 45 percent said they felt less safe.

The poll was released at Tuesday’s Public Safety Committee meeting. The results are based on telephone responses of 600 Oakland residents, conducted in English, Spanish and Chinese.

The council is not expected to place tax measure on the ballot until July. At present, most council members are leaning toward maintaining the current tax rate.

Supporting the current tax rate are Councilmembers Libby Schaaf, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Noel Gallo and Rebecca Kaplan. “We would all love to increase those resources, but let us not risk what we have today by being overly greedy and just out of touch with reality, “said Schaaf.

The city should be satisfied with the current tax rate, especially since garbage bill is set to go up substantially this year, and the school district is also seeking a parcel tax in November, said District 5 Councilmember Gallo.

Councilmember Kaplan emphasized that the city must address residents’ concerns. “If we’re going

Rebecca Kaplan. Photo courtesy of Oakland Local.

to ask that Oakland voters continue trusting City Hall with their public safety dollars, then we owe them a promise that we won’t lay off (any more) police officers.”

The Oakland City Council voted in 2010 to lay off 80 police officers – Kaplan voted no. “Voters need to know that City Hall won’t be allowed to make the same mistake again,” she said. “We must stop the crazy roller coaster of deep police cuts.”

Community leaders also want to be sure the city will live up to its promises, based on its track record for the past 10 years.

“There are a lot of people who are very skeptical about Measure Y,” said Joe Tuman, a mayoral candidate who has closely followed how the city has spent the money.

“Promises were made and assurances given. But as we got down the road with this, the city did not keep its promises.”

“We need some very specific language (in the new measure), that says exactly what you are going to do with this money,” he said. “Exactly how many police will be hired? How many is the city itself going to pay for? If you are going to pay for programs, how you will evaluate whether they are effective?”

Rashidah Grinage of People United for a Better Life in Oakland (PUEBL0) also complained about the city’s failure to monitor how funds were spent. “Evaluations that had been done were not adequate,” she said.

She also said the city did not deliver on its promise to implement community policing, to fully staff and support problem solving officers.

“In certain sections in the of the community, there’s a feeling of betrayal,” she said. “We have to be able to trust that commitments that are being made will be kept.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:Joe Tuman Measure Y Oakland parcle tax rebecca kaplan

Up Next

Crime Rates Remain High But Are Falling, Says OPD

Don't Miss

Oakland Raiders Host “Draft Day” Movie Screening for Fans

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

4 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”