Editor’s note: This is a developing story. The complaint, filed April 30 in Alameda County Superior Court, focuses on Measure E — the $34 million-per-year parcel tax appearing on the June 2, 2026 ballot — and the City’s response (or non-response) to a series of Public Records Act requests aimed at uncovering how the measure came to be.

Today the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association (ACTA) and Oakland attorney Marleen L. Sacks filed a verified petition for writ of mandate against the City of Oakland and the Oakland City Council.

The lawsuit alleges that the City has unlawfully concealed records relating to Measure E and engaged in a “coordinated and deeply troubling effort” to evade the two-thirds vote that California law would otherwise require for the parcel tax now on the June 2 ballot.1

Read the lawsuit:

Petiiton for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

420KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Petitioner Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association, a 501c(4) non-profit, and Petitioner Marleen L. Sacks (hereinafter “petitioner”), a taxpayer, hereby petition this Court for a peremptory writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085, declaratory and injunctive relief, directed to the City of Oakland, and its designated officers, for the following relief:

Download

The 26-page complaint lays out a detailed chronology in which the City Council adopted a $4.2 billion two-year budget in June 2025 that depended on $40 million in new parcel tax revenue — before any such tax measure had been drafted, agendized, or approved.

Then, after months of staff reports and polling, allowed the measure to “suddenly” appear in November 2025, drafted and submitted not by the City, but by the City’s largest public-sector union, SEIU Local 1021.

In simple terms, the lawsuit alleges that Measure E is a city tax masquerading as a ‘citizen-sponsored’ initiative — designed to reduce the approval threshold from two-thirds to a simple majority.

The alleged scheme

Under California law, a parcel tax placed on the ballot by a city council is a “special tax” requiring two-thirds voter approval. But per recent court decisions, a tax measure qualified for the ballot through the citizens’ initiative process needs only a simple majority.

Oakland Report reported this loophole in detail throughout the spring, including in our April 8 exposé documenting that the city of Oakland has broken its promises to voters in three of the last four parcel tax measures.2

ACTA’s petition now alleges what some observers have suspected: that the citizens’-initiative posture of Measure E was a deliberate tactic to lower the voter approval threshold.

The lawsuit walks through a timeline to support the allegation:

• June 11, 2025 — Council adopts a balanced budget premised on a not-yet-existing $40 million parcel tax in 2026.

• August 30, 2025 — The council Finance Committee discusses tax structures; city finance director Bradley Johnson tells the committee the City is already working with a polling firm to gauge voter support for a June ballot tax measure.

• September 22, 2025 — Deputy city administrator Monica Davis submits an “informational report” laying out parcel tax options to raise the targeted $40 million.

• October 16, 2025 — A supplemental “informational report” expands the menu of tax options, including a new parcel tax. The report says the existing PFRS pension override is “winding down” but does not say it is “expiring” in 2026.

• November 18, 2025 — Without the Council ever agendizing or approving any ballot measure, a fully drafted parcel tax measure — the “Oakland Public Safety, Cleanliness and Public Accountability Act of 2026” — is delivered to the City Clerk. The cover letter is from SEIU Local 1021’s Director of Research, Caitlin Prendiville. The contact attorney is Richard Rios of Olson Remcho — the same firm that represented the City in the Measure AA litigation, in which the trial court called the tax “a fraud on the voters” before being reversed on appeal on the citizens’-initiative theory.3

See this related article:

The complaint also notes that the staff contact listed on the October 16 informational report — Revenue and Tax Administrator Nicole Welch — is herself a member of SEIU Local 21. Whether Welch communicated with SEIU Local 1021 about the measure is one of the central factual questions that ACTA’s records requests are designed to answer.

“The timing, structure, and provenance of the measure strongly indicate a deliberate strategy to convert what would otherwise be a City-sponsored parcel tax requiring a two-thirds vote into a so-called ‘citizens’ initiative,’ thereby lowering the threshold for passage to a simple majority.”

— Petition for Writ of Mandate, ¶ 1

What the City has produced (and what it hasn’t)

The records portion of the lawsuit raises additional questions about the city’s conduct with regard to transparency.

Between Dec. 29, 2025 and Feb. 23, 2026, ACTA and Sacks submitted five separate California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests through Oakland’s NextRequest portal, each progressively narrower than the last, each seeking communications that — if they exist — would document coordination between City staff and SEIU on the parcel tax.

According to the lawsuit:

• The first request (Dec. 29, 2025) yielded four documents on January 12, 2026 — three days after the statutory deadline — and a handful more in late January and February. Multiple councilmembers, the Mayor’s office, and the City Administrator’s office have all uploaded responses claiming to possess no responsive records at all.

• The second request (Feb. 3, 2026) was, as of late April, still sitting in the City Clerk’s office with no documents produced and no indication that the Clerk had even forwarded the request to other departments.

• The third request (Feb. 12, 2026), seeking polls and polling-related communications, had received zero documents and zero status updates more than two months after submission.

• The fourth request (Feb. 19, 2026), seeking documents supporting Measure E’s claim that an “expiring” property tax would be “replaced,” had also produced nothing as of the end of April.

• The fifth request (Feb. 23, 2026), seeking communications to and from Nicole Welch and other City staff regarding SEIU Local 1021 and the parcel tax, was likewise unanswered.

The lawsuit characterizes the “no responsive records” claims from councilmembers and the Mayor’s office as not credible, given that the budget approved in June 2025 expressly depended on a parcel tax that materialized five months later in a form drafted by SEIU.

This is not the City’s first irregularity with public records requests. A local online media outlet’s investigative review of nearly 180 public records requests filed with current and former councilmembers in October 2025 found that, in only 13 cases out of 91 filed with sitting councilmembers, did an official respond within the legally required 10-day window.4

And less than two weeks before ACTA’s lawsuit was filed, the same outlet reported that the Oakland Police Department is now violating the terms of a prior class-action settlement requiring it to comply with the Public Records Act — with the outlet’s attorney warning the City Attorney that he is prepared to return to court.5

A pattern, not an isolated incident

ACTA’s complaint goes to some lengths to establish that Oakland’s noncompliance with the CPRA is not a series of isolated lapses but an institutional practice:

• Case No. RG20078708 — In February 2024, Judge Stephen Kaus ordered the City to produce roughly 450 documents that former Mayor Libby Schaaf had been routing through her personal email account in connection with Measure AA. The case settled in February 2025 with the City agreeing to revise Administrative Instruction 106 (its internal CPRA compliance policy) and pay over $200,000 in attorney’s fees.

• Case No. 23CV027685 — Settled May 2025, with the City paying another $200,000-plus in attorney’s fees.

• Case No. RG 20071657 — City lost on the merits in April 2021 and paid $125,204.50 in fees.

• Case No. RG 20072029 — Settled December 2021 for $127,500 in fees; the City is now alleged to be violating that settlement, too.

• Public Ethics Commission, May 2021 — The Commission’s Spotlight on Oakland’s Public Records System report concluded that Oakland repeatedly and regularly fails to comply with the CPRA and its own Sunshine Ordinance.

• April 2026 — A wrongful-termination lawsuit filed by former mayoral staffer Leigh Hanson reportedly alleges that City employees, including council president Kevin Jenkins, communicated about City business via Signal — an encrypted messaging app whose use, the petition argues, can have only one purpose: thwarting the Public Records Act.

The new Administrative Instruction (AI) 106 — negotiated as part of the 2025 settlement — explicitly forbids using personal devices, personal email, or messaging apps “to willfully avoid compliance” with the CPRA, and requires department directors to monitor outstanding requests and ensure overdue responses are addressed.

The lawsuit alleges that none of these ministerial requirements have been complied with in connection with the five Measure E records requests.

See this related video:

What the lawsuit asks for

The complaint pleads six causes of action, including a CCP § 526a taxpayer-waste claim, a writ to compel CPRA compliance, declaratory and injunctive relief under the Sunshine Ordinance and AI 106, and a separate cause of action for the Public Ethics Commission’s failure to commence mediation within the 10-day window required by Oakland Municipal Code § 2.20.27(c).

The Commission’s mediation coordinator, Jelani Killings, told Sacks on March 10 that the office was “operating with limited staff” and could not address the backlog of mediation requests.

ACTA is asking the court to order immediate production of withheld documents, and to:

• Issue declaratory relief that the City is out of compliance with the CPRA, the Sunshine Ordinance, and AI 106;

• Require the City to meet CPRA deadlines on all requests going forward, not just the Petitioners’;

• Order regular compliance reports to the court;

• And appoint a court monitor to oversee compliance.

The monitor request in particular reflects the Petitioners’ position — supported by the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (2026) 19 Cal.5th 38, which the complaint cites — that declaratory relief is appropriate where a declaration “would resolve an ongoing dispute regarding the parties’ rights and obligations in a manner that has some likelihood of affecting future requests for public records or future conduct relating to such requests.”

In plain English: ACTA is asking the court to find that the City’s pattern of CPRA violations is severe enough that ad hoc, lawsuit-by-lawsuit enforcement is no longer adequate.

The bigger picture for Measure E

Whatever happens in this litigation, the records dispute is now entangled with the substantive questions voters will face on June 2. Three of those questions stand out:

Did the City coordinate with SEIU to dodge the two-thirds vote? That is the central factual question the records would answer. The City’s “no responsive records” assertions are, on their face, difficult to reconcile with the documented chronology — and ACTA’s brief catalogs the indirect evidence: the budget assumption made before any measure existed, the polling commissioned while the Council had taken no formal action, the staff contact at SEIU Local 21, the SEIU Local 1021 cover letter on the November filing, and the law firm shared with the prior Measure AA litigation.

Is Measure E’s “lower taxes” claim accurate? Measure E’s text declares that it will “replace” an “expiring” property assessment and “reduce taxes for a majority of Oakland homeowners.” The City’s own October 16 informational report described the PFRS override as “winding down” — not expiring — and projected that it would continue in some form “in future years.”

Notably, Measure E would be in addition to, not in place of, Measure NN (the 2024 public safety parcel tax).

See this related article:

Where would the money go? As Oakland Report documented in February, 44% of Measure E’s revenue would be absorbed by public-sector union raises — which increase the city’s costs in every year going forward — in contracts the City and unions signed in September 2025.6 Measure E itself contains no guaranteed minimum staffing levels, no guaranteed shelter beds, and no enforceable service standards.

ACTA’s petition is, in the end, a request that voters and the court be allowed to see the documents that would let them evaluate those three questions for themselves.

Read the press release:

Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association Sues City of Oakland Over Public Records Act Violations Related to Measure E Parcel Tax

270KB ∙ PDF file

Download

For Immediate Release. On April 30, 2026, the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association (“ACTA”) filed suit against the City of Oakland alleging multiple violations of the California Public Records Act in connection with Measure E, a proposed parcel tax measure set to appear on the June 2026 ballot.

Download

Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our work, please donate. All contributions go directly to sustaining and growing our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

PART ONE OF A SERIES

Oakland Beat provides information and commentary on local issues that catch our attention.

Oakland Beat is written exclusively for Oakland Report supporting members, but this installment is being made available to all readers.

Become a member of Oakland Report today to receive future installments of Oakland Beat, straight to your inbox. (If you have already donated to Oakland Report: thank you.)

Join now to support our nonprofit work.

Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is sliding back toward receivership, less than 12 months after exiting two decades of state control. Despite widespread media coverage and public discussion about OUSD’s crisis, few observers seem willing to name the political force that helped drive it to the brink: Oakland Education Association (OEA), the teachers union that has spent years donating to and campaigning for school board members friendly to its financial interests.

These same school board members — some of whom hail from union ranks and leadership themselves — now oversee OUSD’s labor contract negotiations with OEA, then approve the resulting contracts.

Reason dictates that this arrangement presents a clear conflict of interest, but OUSD and OEA are by no means outliers. This practice is routine among elected officials and the public unions that donate to their campaigns.

Notably, public employee unions get much of their funding from union dues paid by public employees through automatic deductions from those employees’ paychecks — meaning that a primary source of OEA’s income is public money provided by taxpayers.

A curious blind spot

Much has been said and written by media outlets, politicians, unions, district staff, and political commentators about the alarmingly dire state of OUSD’s finances. Some have recognized the school board’s apparent unwillingness to do the hard but necessary work of digging Oakland’s schools out of the deep budget hole they now are in.

Yet virtually all of these influential voices have declined to directly acknowledge the elephant in the room: OEA’s outsized political and financial influence on the school board, and its direct connection to the board’s reckless financial decision-making. Instead there are carefully-worded allusions that hint at, but ultimately obscure this connection, even as it sits in plain sight.

We can only speculate as to why virtually no one in a position of influence directly calls out this connection. However, it seems likely that several factors are in play:

• Some influential voices may fear being labeled ‘anti-teacher’ and ‘anti-union’ — despite the fact that it is possible, and even healthy, to support teachers and unions while also insisting on fiscal accountability.

• Some — especially politicians — depend on the union for financial support, not to mention the union’s considerable power to deploy its army of members to knock doors and advocate for politicians’ campaigns.

• Others — such as journalists — may feel they need to maintain relationships and access to the union and its supporters in order to get information and quotes for their stories.

• Some may fear potential negative repercussions to their careers and reputations — and even to their emotional and physical well-being — should the union decide to direct its considerable power and public influence against them.

See this related article:

Here we pause to make one point absolutely clear: we believe unions are important and valuable organizations for protecting workers’ interests.

Collective bargaining empowers workers to negotiate for fair compensation and safe, supportive working conditions. The list of workplace improvements labor unions have created throughout history is long, and worthy of gratitude and respect.

We also believe that teachers are part of a noble profession, held in very high regard that is well-earned through centuries of education and enlightenment to which they have dedicated their professional lives.

These are all good things that we agree with.

However, it also is a fact that no organization — indeed, no person — is immune from the corrosive effects of outsized power, disproportionate wealth, and overwhelming influence over public affairs.

Numerous studies provide examples of powerful and influential organizations — including corporations,1 local governments,2 and public employee unions3 — that abuse their power to the detriment of others, and sometimes ultimately themselves and the ideals they once held.

Proven antidotes to these corrosive effects include public scrutiny, strong and responsible oversight, sound leadership, regulatory checks, and an unwavering commitment to the highest ethical standards throughout the organization and every person involved in it.

Many organizations do have these guardrails in place, which serve to rein in the innate tendency for power to corrupt an organization.

Unfortunately, some do not.

One tactic such organizations employ is to use their outsized power and influence to remove or render meaningless the guardrails that otherwise might check their worst tendencies.

In an attempt to better understand how this situation came to pass in OUSD — and its profound effect on Oakland’s schools — we will take a closer look at the elephant in the room.

Don’t miss a beat. Become a supporting member of Oakland Report. Your donation helps us continue our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

Part 1

Oakland Education Association has spent over $239,000 to elect union-friendly school board members — including a former OEA leader who is now the school board president

“There is no conflict of interest between the Board and the teachers union.”

— OUSD board president Jennifer Brouhard, Jun. 24, 2025.4

“OEA stands behind the leadership of Board President Brouhard and Directors Bachelor, Latta, and Williams, whose vision reflects the moral, accountable, and responsible governance that Oakland’s students, families, Education, and communities deserve.”

— Oakland Education Association statement after the April 2025 firing of longtime superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell.5

Once upon a time, school board races were low-key, low-dollar affairs, typically featuring grassroots candidates who focused mainly on the nuts-and-bolts, often boring work of steering a school district’s administrative decisions.

Those days are long gone.

Today, Oakland’s school board elections are awash in special-interest money, routinely running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Oakland Education Association is not the only special interest involved in these races, but OEA is unique among them for two important reasons:

1. OEA’s membership — nearly 3,000 teachers and other credentialed staff — form a built-in standing army of volunteers with deep personal, professional and emotional ties to everyday Oaklanders. These volunteers can do the heavy lifting of widespread in-person and social media campaigning — a critical component of any political campaign, especially in a city as large and complex as Oakland.

2. The school board members who accept OEA’s financial support to get elected and re-elected are in a unique position of power to directly and materially influence the financial compensation these OEA members receive — and by extension, the union dues OEA receives. This unique power is exerted through the school board’s authority over labor contract negotiations, district funding decisions, and union contract approvals.

These realities exist in many other government agencies, but they are particularly relevant to OUSD’s current budget crisis.

Over the past two school board election cycles (2022 and 2024), OEA has spent over $239,000 to help elect union-friendly school board members.

The most influential beneficiary of OEA’s support is board president Jennifer Brouhard. Before her election to the school board in 2022, Brouhard held prominent leadership roles in OEA, including three terms on the OEA executive board and one term as OEA secretary, in addition to many years as an OEA school site representative.6

According to multiple reports, Brouhard was instrumental in firing former longtime superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell, who successfully steered OUSD out of state receivership during her tenure7 — and installing interim superintendent Denise Saddler in her place.8

Before Saddler was named interim superintendent, she served six years as the president of OEA.9

‘A decision-making problem’

“The District does not have a revenue problem, it has a decision-making problem.”

— Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Alysse Castro, Apr. 16, 2026.10

Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Alysse Castro has repeatedly, but carefully warned the OUSD board that the district’s finances are in a profound and unsustainable budget hole that needs immediate course-correction (i.e., stop digging).

But the OEA-sponsored board majority has repeatedly ignored these warnings, most recently by promising significant pay and benefit increases to OEA members with no plan to fund those increases, seemingly inviting a return to state receivership and a loss of local control over Oakland’s schools.

Earlier this month, Castro sent OUSD an official letter written in careful, technocratic prose, warning that the district may soon be unable to pay its bills.11

Castro’s letter was a formal “Going Concern Notice” — a regulatory step that precedes a formal state takeover — signaling to the seven elected members of the OUSD board that the district’s financial situation needs immediate, drastic change.

Castro’s letter says that OUSD’s main problem is that the board continues to make exorbitant financial promises with no clear plan how to fund them.

But Castro — herself an elected official — does not directly connect the district’s multi-million-dollar budget deficit to OEA’s political contributions and its extraordinary influence over OEA-backed school board members.

Even the board’s reckless approval of a new tentative labor agreement that would award teachers raises of up to 13% over two years — against the recommendations of a neutral arbiter12 that recommended raises of only 6% — did not register a direct objection from Castro.

She instead focused on the district’s lack of a sustainable plan to find the money, followed by a statistic that implied that the district has the resources to find it, despite an existential budget deficit.

“The issue is not the raises themselves, but the absence of a Board-approved, sustainable plan to support them. At over $800 million in revenue serving 34,000 students, OUSD is among the highest-funded urban districts in California.”

– Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Alysse Castro, Apr. 16, 2026.

This is not Castro’s first warning to OUSD that it is on a path to insolvency. Nonetheless, the OEA-sponsored board majority continues to ignore her warnings.

See this related article:

A flood of rhetoric and reporting – with a key blind spot

Local media outlets have widely reported Castro’s multiple warnings about OUSD’s declining enrollment and rising costs, its alarming and untenable budget deficit, and the real and present threat that the school board could forfeit local control over Oakland’s schools once again.

Media outlets have reported the board’s consistent refusal to seriously consider closing and consolidating some of its 77 severely under-enrolled school sites that could save the district up to $82.9 million in outstanding facilities needs,13 if the district were to follow its own efficiency analysis that suggested the district should only operate 46 sites.14

They have reported the board’s recent surprise backroom decision to suspend the search for a permanent superintendent after previously announcing a national search and hiring an expensive recruiting firm, preferring instead to keep the interim superintendent — herself a former OEA leader — through the fall.

See this related article:

Local media outlets have published detailed reports of the district’s financial shortfalls, while simultaneously publishing — but not challenging — quotes from school board president Brouhard saying she is “confident” the district will balance its budget yet providing no details how that will be achieved.15

They have published quotes from OEA union president Kampala Taiz-Rancifer calling the budget crisis “manufactured” — without questioning that assertion or seeking credible evidence to support it.16

Aside from a few isolated hints, neither the local media outlets covering OUSD nor other influential voices have directly addressed the materially significant connection that sits in plain view: the bloc of four school board members who were elected with OEA’s substantial financial and organizational backing.1718192021 None have fully described, nor even explored why these OEA-backed school board members continue use their authority to negotiate, fund, and approve substantial new financial benefits to OEA, driving OUSD even deeper into financial ruin.

📖

Part 2 of this series will take a deeper dive into the local media coverage, school board actions, and politicians’ rhetoric about the OUSD budget crisis — all of which carefully describe the various parts of the crisis while gliding past what is arguably its largest and most impactful element. We also will examine the tactics used by OEA and OEA-backed school board members to preserve their outsized power over OUSD. Future installments will similarly examine the role of public employee unions in Oakland City Council elections.

Don’t miss a beat. Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our work, please donate. All contributions go directly to sustaining and growing our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

See these related articles:

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-unified-risk-state-oversight-again-board-members-warn/

Editors’ note

Shortly after former Oakland councilmember Rebecca Kaplan left elected office in 2025, Oakland city administrator Jestin D. Johnson awarded her a $149,000-per-year-plus-benefits job as an ‘illegal dumping project manager.’ Johnson hired Kaplan with no public recruitment, no job description, and no public announcement. Oakland Report first published the details of Kaplan’s employment contract and compensation in November.1

Illegal dumping has been a signature issue for Kaplan since the early days of her political career. City officials have lauded Kaplan for her expertise and work in this area. Yet Oakland’s illegal dumping problems became measurably worse during Kaplan’s 16-year tenure on city council, and today have escalated to become among the city’s most visible, vexing, and expensive crises.2

Now the city of Oakland is paying Kaplan handsomely to work as a city employee — out of the public’s view — to ‘project manage’ the consequences of the illegal dumping policies and waste removal contracts she played an outsized role in shaping during her time on the council.

Before she got her new city job, Kaplan frequently appeared and spoke about her achievements in public, having run for office a dozen times over the past two decades. But since she signed her new city employment contract in September 2025, she has remained remarkably silent in public, and the city has provided scant information about Kaplan’s new role and activities.

This report draws from public records, city documents, independent audits, and media reports to help Oakland Report readers piece together what Kaplan has been doing in her new job — and the path she took to land her new publicly funded employment.

Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our nonprofit work, please subscribe, share, and donate.

Thank you for reading Oakland Report. Your donation in any amount helps us continue our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

Kaplan’s $149,410-per-year-plus-benefits city job

The terms of Kaplan’s city employment offer do not include a detailed job description, required qualifications, or performance metrics. The available details are primarily focused on compensation:

• “The agreed-upon salary will be $12,450.81 Monthly.”

• “Salary, benefits, paid time off, and other terms of employment are covered in union Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs), policies, and regulations adopted by the Oakland City Council.”

• “This position works 37.5 hours a week.”

• “You will accrue 15 days of vacation per year.”

• “This classification is not represented by a Union.”

• “This is an at-will position.”

Kaplan’s over 16-year council tenure ended in May 2025, after two failed runs for Oakland mayor and a failed run for a seat on the Alameda County board of supervisors.

After her term as at-large councilmember ended in January 2025, the council appointed her to serve as District 2 interim councilmember from January to April 2025 to fill a vacant seat left by Nikki Bas’ election to the Alameda County board of supervisors.

Four months later in September, Kaplan was hired as an “Exempt Limited Duration Employee” (ELDE) in the City Administrator’s Office with an annual salary of $149,410, plus benefits. There was no public recruitment for the role, and no public announcement after the hire.

Kaplan’s hiring paperwork was signed by City Administrator Jestin D. Johnson, specifying that she would work out of the City Administrator’s Office at City Hall.

$2.3 million in compensation over 16 years

Kaplan was first sworn in to the at-large Oakland City Council seat on January 7, 2009, where she served for 16 years. The chart below shows the estimated compensation she received from the city during her council tenure, drawn from the Public Ethics Commission’s (PEC’s) published compensation data.3

Adding the PEC-authorized base rates from 2009–2024 and the 2025 contracted ELDE term through its September 2026 expiration, Kaplan’s base salary from the City of Oakland totaled approximately $1.59 million from January 2009 through September 2026.

Kaplan received an estimated 48% more in benefits compensation on top of her salary, based on the city’s documented benefits-to-base ratios, bringing her total compensation to roughly $2.36 million over 17 years and 9 months.

Now we turn to the city’s efforts at combating illegal dumping during Kaplan’s tenure, and her role in those efforts.

Twenty years of spending, twenty years of ever-growing trash

City Auditor Michael C. Houston’s recent Performance Audit of Illegal Dumping documents what residents pay for waste service, what the city collects in citation revenue, and what the city has done with roughly $12 million a year in spending.4

The audit does not mention Kaplan by name. Her work, however, runs through nearly every contract, settlement, and policy decision the audit documents.

City administrator Johnson’s response to the audit says that “most” of the city’s illegal dumping strategy goals have been met — however only 4 of the 17 have been marked “Complete.”

Johnson’s response to the audit’s findings indicates that at least one of the key aspects of the city’s illegal dumping work is being done by “a project manager in the City Administrator’s Office” whom the document does not name.5 That project manager most likely is Rebecca Kaplan.

“A project manager in the City Administrator’s Office is currently performing an interagency coordinating role, participating in Countywide, Regional, and Statewide Illegal Dumping coordination, strategy, and convenings. This work includes identifying funding, policies, and resources with State, County, and other partners, including to advance countywide enforcement strategies.”

–City administrator Jestin D. Johnson, Apr. 23, 2026

The audit’s data, combined with prior city reports and contemporaneous press accounts, provide a view of what Oakland has tried, what it has cost, and what changed.

Cleanup spending has increased substantially since 2020. Tonnage of trash removed increased over the same period, but has leveled off in recent years.

Resident reports of illegal dumping through 311 calls reached a pandemic-year peak of 35,860 in 2020, then dropped precipitously to 27,000 and steadily declined to 23,000 in 2025 — indicating a drop in calls that runs counter to the increasing scale of the problem.

The audit attributes the gap between the rising spending line and the declining 311 line partly to 311 being available only in English — which doesn’t entirely explain why 311 reporting went up sharply in previous years — and partly to Public Works more proactively hauling away dumping volume through ‘garbage blitz’ crews before residents file 311 reports.

The waste removal contract Oaklanders pay for — with trash fees 56% higher than average

The city’s contract with Waste Management emerged from a 2014 bidding process in which city staff recommended awarding a $1 billion trash, compost, and recycling contract to Waste Management. The contract was executed in 2015, and the current, amended version runs through 2030.

According to a 2016 Alameda County Grand Jury report,6 councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, and Dan Kalb in 2014 moved to reopen the bidding process in favor of California Waste Solutions (CWS), a local recycler owned by the Duong family.

Waste Management filed a lawsuit, claiming that the contract was unlawfully steered to CWS at the last minute due to “personal and political connections” between CWS and elected officials. The case was ultimately settled: Waste Management received the trash and compost contracts, and CWS received the recycling contract.7

A few years later, the owners of CWS were federally indicted for corruption related to making improper political donations to several Oakland politicians, including Kaplan (more on that below).

The audit’s data show the cost of waste service in Oakland is substantially higher than the average in the region. The audit compares the minimum monthly curbside service rate for single-family households in five East Bay cities that contract with the same hauler, Waste Management of Alameda County, and use the same transfer station and landfill. Oakland’s rate is 56% above that average, second only to Albany.

While Oakland residents have paid those higher-than-average rates, the city has poured ever-larger sums of public money into cleanup. Tonnage of waste removed by the city has ramped up significantly since FY 2019–20, but illegal dumping remains, by the audit’s account, “the most-requested City service.”

The audit reports the city’s fiscal year 2024–25 expenditures of $11.9 million on cleanup. The expenditures included $2 million spent on enforcement, but only $16,000 in paid citation revenue was collected. Roughly $1.3 million in citations were issued during the period, but only an estimated 11% of issued citations were paid.

Notably, the audit shows that the city’s ‘encampment management team’ removed 5,428 tons of debris from encampment sites in 2025 — substantially more than the 3,617 tons of illegal dumping collected citywide.

See this related article:

The 2026 audit’s first recommendation asks the Public Works department and the City Attorney to renegotiate the Waste Management contract or rebid it “at the next renewal date, to reduce hauling rates per volume and promote transparency by detailing cost components of the rates.” City management agreed; the target completion date is June 30, 2027 — six months before the next scheduled at-large council election.

The city’s illegal dumping tactics

Across two decades, Oakland has tried multiple approaches to illegal dumping, yet the problem has only grown in scale and expense:

The Waste Management contract (2015, runs through 2030) provides trash pickup service to Oakland homes and businesses. The audit found that Oakland residents pay rates 56% higher than the average of four neighboring cities served by the same hauler. The audit recommends renegotiating the agreement.

Public Works reactive cleanup crews ($11.9 million in fiscal year 2024–25). The city’s 311-driven response efforts removed roughly 7 million pounds of waste from city streets in 2025, according to the audit’s headline figure. The city reports collecting 18 million pounds annually citywide when proactive dumping and encampment cleanups are included.

The ‘garbage blitz’ proactive crew (operating since 2021, with expanded weekend coverage approved October 2025) deployed to known hot spots to clear dumping before residents call 311. The audit asserts that this model suppresses 311 reports by removing piles before they are reported, but also shows that dumping volumes continue to increase.

The ‘encampment management team’ (a separate Public Works effort) removed 5,428 tons of debris from encampment sites in 2025, substantially more than the 3,617 tons of illegal dumping collected citywide in the same period. The audit identifies funding diversion from ‘garbage blitz’ proactive crews to the ‘encampment management team’ in 2024 as a contributing factor to slower 311 response times.

The ‘environmental enforcement unit’ ($2.0 million spent in fiscal year 2024–25, only $16,000 in fines collected) issued $1.3 million in citations during the period — but only an estimated 11% of that was collected.8

Surveillance cameras (36 units, operating since March 2022). The audit recommends that Public Works evaluate and adjust placement to raise citations per camera. City management “partially agrees,” responding that “citation numbers should not be the determinative criteria for camera placement — sometimes a camera is preventing citable behavior from occurring.”

The Aerbits AI drone pilot ($150,000 over six months, approved by city council in April 2026) involves drones flying 72 missions over 1,440 miles of streets to detect dumping piles and automatically file 311 reports. Aerbits’s prior 13-month self-funded San Francisco pilot reported 96% peak reduction in active dumpsites and 4,376 service requests filed. However, the same pilot showed that dumpsites returned within 14 days when monitoring stopped.9

California State Senate Bill 1218 (Arreguín, sponsored by Oakland) would direct the DMV to collect unpaid illegal-dumping citations alongside vehicle registration. The bill had cleared one Senate committee as of the April 23 audit release.10

Mayor and councilmember dumpster allocation. The Waste Management contract provides 12 large dumpsters per year to the Mayor and each councilmember, plus 30 reserved for city events. The audit reports that 71 to 87 dumpsters went unused in each year over the audit window.

Free residential bulky-item pickup (one per year per residential unit, including renters, under the Waste Management contract). In 2025, 72% of single-family households used at least one pickup, but only 2% of multi-family units used the service. The audit recommends that Public Works ‘expand outreach.’

Bulky block parties (residents bring items to a designated location for free disposal on the last Saturday of each month) was operated through 2024, but the city ended the program due to budget constraints.

Davis Street Transfer Station free annual drop-off. Residents may bring items once per year for free disposal. In 2025, 4,501 residential drop-offs were recorded — most were from single-family residents.

Higher fines (adopted by city council April 14, 2026) increased citation amounts to as high as $5,000 per violation, matching Alameda County’s draft scale.11

Across these tactics, the audit’s data point in the same direction: more dollars spent, more tons hauled — and a consistent, substantial increase in the severity of the problem.

The auditor’s first recommendation — to renegotiate the contract that fixes Oakland’s rate structure 56% above average — is the only intervention the auditor identifies as capable of altering the underlying economics. Management agreed to that recommendation; the target completion date is over two years from now.

Kaplan has said very little in public about her activities since getting her new city job

In the seven months between her Sept. 27, 2025 hire as a ‘project manager (illegal dumping)’ and the Apr. 23, 2026 audit, Kaplan appears to have made only a few, low-key documented public statements on illegal dumping policy.

On Jan. 12, 2026, Kaplan appeared as a confirmed panelist at a community forum titled, “Public Action on Illegal Dumping,” and organized by Faith in Action East Bay, the Block By Block Organizing Network, and the East Bay Asian Youth Center.12

The event was attended by hundreds of residents and other panelists including City Auditor Michael Houston, Public Works Interim Director Josh Rowan, At-Large Councilmember Rowena Brown, and Erin Armstrong of Supervisor Nate Miley’s office.

An event recap posted the next day attributed one quote to Kaplan: “A complaint-based system is inherently inequitable.”13 The remark appeared to refer to the city’s reliance on resident-initiated 311 service requests, which are in English only, as the primary trigger for cleanup response.

On Mar. 5, 2026, Kaplan appeared at the Privacy Advisory Commission to present a use policy for the Aerbits AI drone program to locate illegal dumping sites. In her brief comments introducing the program, Kaplan assured the commission that the drone data would be kept secure and does not use facial recognition technology or retain “any personally identifiable information,” and added that it would be used to “deploy for clean up and remediation in a more effective manner, a more rapid manner, and a more equitable manner.”14

These two appearances are the only direct public quotations from Kaplan that Oakland Report has been able to identify after she secured her new city job in September 2025. Other reports allude to Kaplan’s activities without naming her.

A local online news site published a Mar. 2, 2026 article on illegal dumping fines that named Kaplan as “involved” in drafting the new ordinance through a secondhand description offered by Faith in Action East Bay organizer Dr. Ida Oberman; however, Kaplan herself was not quoted.15

A follow-up Mar. 9, 2026 article in the same online publication about State Senate Bill 1218 listed Kaplan among “other officials” working on the Oakland ordinance; but again, it included no direct statement from Kaplan.16

Local television station KTVU’s coverage of a second Faith in Action East Bay forum on illegal dumping, three days before the audit release, named Mayor Lee, Councilmember Zac Unger, and others as panelists; but this time Kaplan was not listed as a panelist.17

Despite Kaplan holding what appears to be a pivotal role in one of the city’s most high-profile initiatives — illegal dumping — the city has been silent on her involvement:

• The city of Oakland’s news release webpage shows no press release issued by Kaplan or naming her since her September 2025 start of employment with the city.

• The City Council has held no public hearing on Kaplan’s employment.

• The council Public Works & Transportation Committee meeting record shows no item presented by Kaplan in her capacity as a city employee.

• No public report authored by Kaplan has been posted on the city’s website.

What the available public records show

Oakland Report reviewed the city’s online public records request log to gain insight into Kaplan’s activities since she landed her new city job. A keyword search for “Kaplan” on that portal returned 122 requests, including some from Kaplan’s council tenure and subsequent city job, and some that are unrelated to her.18

Together, the public records — which were only made available after multiple Public Records Act requests, and some of which were redacted — suggest that Kaplan’s recent work includes developing policy, writing reports, coordinating with Waste Management, seeking philanthropic donations, and coordinating with nonprofit organizations.

The available public records do not contain a detailed job description, scope of work, or performance metrics for Kaplan’s position.

Here’s what we found:

October 29, 2025 Regional Convening on Illegal Dumping. Kaplan attended a “Bay Area Regional Convening” hosted by Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley at the Alameda County Training and Conference Center in Oakland. The meeting’s stated goals were to “Release the Illegal Dumping Solutions Report,” “Unveil a Model Ordinance for Illegal Dumping Enforcement,” and hold a panel discussion on “Best Practices for Franchise Agreements” — the category covering Oakland’s Waste Management and California Waste Solutions contracts.

The day before the convening, Kaplan received the meeting information from Erin Armstrong, Supervisor Miley’s Director of Policy and Strategic Initiatives, and forwarded it to City Administrator Johnson and his deputy Aracely Garza. The afternoon of the convening (Oct. 29, 2025 at 3:32 PM), Kaplan emailed Johnson and Garza: “The Bay Area Regional Convening on illegal dumping today was great. I wanted to share the invitation they gave us, to participate in the Spring 2026 Statewide Illegal Dumping Conference. It will be on April 30 and May 1, 2026.” The email proposed a follow-up internal meeting for Nov. 6, 2025.

‘Strategies for Illegal Dumping’ memo. Kaplan authored a draft memo that Johnson distributed on Nov. 3, 2025 to a senior city group including Josh Rowan, Mayor Barbara Lee’s chief of staff Maya Saika Chen, City Attorney Ryan Richardson, communications director Sean Maher, and City Auditor Michael Houston. Johnson’s cover note: “I am sharing with you a copy of the initial illegal dumping strategies document that Rebecca Kaplan prepared. Recognizing that many of you have inquired about this work, I want to be sure that you all receive the same information.”

Three days later, Saika Chen forwarded the email to Erica Astrella in the Mayor’s office, writing: “Connecting you both so we can all be aligned on all the incredible work being done on illegal dumping. This is an amazing compilation and work plan Rebecca, thank you.” The memo includes an attached document with filename, “Strategies for Illegal Dumping Draft.pdf.”

Illegal Dumping Ordinance and accompanying staff report. On November 4, 2025, Kaplan emailed councilmember Unger’s aide Matthew Malsin a first-draft ordinance with a background research memo. The draft incorporated an administrative penalty scale of $2,500 for a first dumping violation, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for a third.

In the email, Kaplan flagged a recurring problem she had been “reviewing and discussing”: that fines “are then actually able to be collected, and that citations are issued in an efficient and effective manner.” She wrote that “a recommended best practice to help solve this” was to tie violations to vehicle ownership for citation purposes — the policy mechanism that became California State Senate Bill 1218.

On February 10, 2026, Kaplan circulated a draft staff report for the ordinance to a wider working group: Unger, Malsin, Patrick Bears (City Attorney’s office), Saika Chen and the mayor’s deputy chief of staff Preston Kilgore, Richardson, Hathaway, Garland, and Betsy Lake.

The Council adopted the ordinance on April 14, 2026. The published staff report makes no mention of Kaplan’s role in creating the ordinance.

The Aerbits AI drone pilot. Mayor Lee’s April 15 press release named Aerbits Inc. founder Brian Johnson as one of four named participants in the city’s legislative package rollout. Records indicate that Kaplan brokered the relationship. Assistant Public Works Director Kristin Hathaway wrote on February 4, 2026, in forwarding the formal proposal to City Administrator Johnson, Public Works Director Garland, and senior environmental staff: “In follow-up to our meeting last week with Brian Johnson, founder of Aerbits, he has submitted for our consideration a proposal for a pilot run of the services he offers… Thanks to Rebecca for coordinating his presentation and procuring the proposal.”

The Crankstart Foundation. On October 27, 2025, Gloria Bruce, Program Director for Housing Security and Public/Private Partnerships at the Crankstart Foundation — the philanthropy of investor Michael Moritz — emailed Kaplan: “So great to reconnect… would love to chat with you sometime soon to hear about your scope of work and if there is any opportunity for Crankstart to support. (FYI, I’ve also been in touch with Esther Morales in the Mayor’s Office about different philanthropic asks so will circle back with her on this as well). My colleague Eli Bildner would join us.”

Kaplan replied later the same afternoon: “Wonderful thanks and I’m excited to connect. I could do weds 10/29 at 2:30pm. Will you send a zoom link?” The October 29 meeting time ran concurrently with the close of Supervisor Miley’s convening. Eli Bildner is identified in the correspondence as Crankstart’s Vice President of Operations. The substance of the philanthropic ask appears to be redacted in the public records release.

Bulky-waste utilization analysis. On Dec. 8, 2025, Kaplan emailed then-Public Works Director Josh Rowan and Assistant Director Hathaway a written analysis of bulky-pickup utilization, with two screenshot exhibits drawn from a prior Public Works report.

Kaplan wrote: “While 24% of single-family homeowners used a free bulky pickup during the year, only 8% of multi-family (e.g. apartment) households used one. So there is substantial room for expansion of use of this program, especially for tenants/multi-family residential units. Also, see the free drop-offs at Davis St. Transfer station, only 9% of available drop-offs were used. Part of the impediment is the need to schedule an appointment ahead of time. As well as lack of knowledge of the program.”

Kaplan forwarded the same analysis to communications director Sean Maher the next day. The audit released four months later (Apr. 23, 2026) makes the same finding, recommending that Public Works ‘expand outreach.’

Coordination with Waste Management. On Jan. 9, 2026, Kaplan emailed Warren Chu, Public Sector Manager at Waste Management of Alameda County, with a screenshot showing the WM bulky waste online booking website was non-functional: “Since booking by using that website is promoted on the hand-outs, mailers, and other materials about the bulky waste program, I wanted to check back about timeline for fixing the web system, and to get clarification in terms of what we can give the public.” Chu replied that afternoon: “Our IT Business Solutions has been working on this since you informed us. They estimate it being fixed tonight.”

Partnership with Keep Oakland Beautiful. Christina Porter, Board Chair of Keep Oakland Beautiful (a nonprofit cleanup organization), emailed Kaplan on Nov. 24, 2025 to finalize two recycling-survey questions the two had discussed the previous week, asking Kaplan’s feedback before the survey distribution. The exchange suggests that Kaplan is a city point of contact for the cleanup nonprofit ecosystem.

Statewide conference participation. Kaplan’s Oct. 29, 2025 email to City Administrator Johnson and Garza forwarded an invitation from Supervisor Miley’s office to the Spring 2026 Statewide Conference on Illegal Dumping, held April 30 to May 1, 2026 in Sacramento (IDCON5). The conference is a recurring statewide gathering of jurisdictions, contractors, and policy advocates. Whether Oakland plans to send representatives, and if so whom, is not documented in the release.

Here we turn to Kaplan’s background as a councilmember, specifically her interactions with waste removal contractors, Oakland politicians, and ethics violations.

‘At least $3 million’ — the California Waste Solutions lawsuit and settlement

In 2017, the City of Oakland sued CWS, alleging that the recycling company whom Kaplan had advocated for the city to hire in 2015 (which itself resulted in a lawsuit from Waste Management) had overcharged multi-family property owners under a “premium backyard service” rate of up to $776.12 per month for cart-rolling service.

On July 30, 2021, the City Council met in closed session via Zoom to discuss a potential settlement in order to avoid costly litigation. Former District 6 Councilmember Loren Taylor, who attended the closed session, told a local online news outlet in 2024 that the city’s case “was stronger than the countersuit from CWS” and “would have been favorable to Oakland and Oakland residents” at trial.19

According to another unnamed source whom the news outlet reported was in the room during the discussion, then-City Attorney Barbara Parker recommended a “good faith” settlement offer “not to exceed $200,000.” According to the unnamed source, Kaplan surprised the group by moving an amendment that changed the authorized cash payment to CWS to “at least $3 million” — a 1,400% increase.

For his part, Taylor told the media outlet that he “does not recall if the city attorney office offered any direction on this case.”

On Dec. 7, 2021, the Council voted 8–0 in open session to authorize a settlement that included $3.2 million paid to CWS.20 Kaplan said at the meeting that she was happy to “get relief for a local business and relief for our public.”

In a separate component of the same settlement, CWS agreed to pay at least $6.2 million in refunds to overcharged multi-family customers. CWS also reduced its premium cart rate from $187.57 per month to $34.22.

‘Truly sorry’ — the 2022 ethics fine

In December 2013, Kaplan and her parents purchased a condominium on the Jack London waterfront. Kaplan made the unit her primary residence in 2018.

She did not list the property on her annual Form 700 financial disclosure for seven years. During that period, Kaplan voted at council meetings on Estuary Park, located within 500 feet of her condominium, in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2020. The 2016 vote allocated $27.5 million in bond proceeds for the project.

A well-known city conflict-of-interest rule prohibits councilmembers from participating in votes that could have a material financial impact on real property in which they have a financial interest within 500 feet of a council action.

Kaplan finally reported the property on her 2019 Form 700, filed in 2020. The Public Ethics Commission (PEC) opened an investigation.

On Dec. 14, 2022, the PEC voted unanimously to impose a $19,000 fine, the maximum allowable under city code on Kaplan for two conflict-of-interest violations and three failures to timely disclose a financial interest.21

PEC enforcement chief Simon Russell described the violations as “serious” and the conduct as “negligent rather than deliberate.” A representative for Kaplan told the commission she was “truly sorry.”22

Sheng Thao, Andre Jones, and the two Duongs: the federal indictments

Oaklanders are likely familiar with the ongoing saga of recalled Oakland mayor Sheng Thao.

On June 20, 2024, federal agents executed search warrants at the homes of then-Mayor Thao, her partner Andre Jones, CWS owners David and Andy Duong, and at CWS’s offices. Oakland voters subsequently recalled Thao on Nov. 5, 2024.

Thao and Jones had previously spent years working for councilmember Kaplan. Jones served as Kaplan’s chief of staff from 2008 to April 2016. Thao joined Kaplan’s office as a paid intern in 2012, and was promoted to her chief of staff in 2017, a role she retained until late 2018 when she won election to the District 4 council seat.

In 2022, Kaplan endorsed Thao’s run for mayor. Thao won by 677 votes.

On January 17, 2025, federal prosecutors indicted Thao, Jones, and the two Duongs on eight counts of conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The indictment alleges that beginning in October 2022, the Duongs promised to commit roughly $375,000 in benefits to Thao and Jones in exchange for Thao’s commitment, if elected mayor, to extend the CWS recycling contract, purchase modular housing units from Duong-backed company Evolutionary Homes, and appoint city officials selected by the Duongs.

The Duongs allegedly made $95,000 in cash payments to Jones disguised as wages for a no-show job at Evolutionary Homes, with $300,000 promised in total. Both Thao and Jones took steps to conceal the scheme, according to federal prosecutors. Bribe payments were routed to Jones at Thao’s direction, the indictment states, “to avoid a paper trail” back to her. All four defendants pleaded not guilty.23

The federal case is the criminal extension of an earlier civil investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission and the Oakland Public Ethics Commission that found, “Andy Duong was the true source of at least 93 contributions to multiple local campaign committees when he created a campaign contribution laundering scheme to benefit his family-owned company.”

Court records identified approximately $67,000 the Duongs allegedly funneled across the 2016–2018 election cycles to seven Oakland councilmembers and council candidates: Dan Kalb, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Larry Reid, Abel Guillen, Desley Brooks, Sheng Thao, and Rebecca Kaplan. The FPPC alleged that $3,500 was routed to Kaplan through seven straw donors.24

A 2022 court filing made public an Andy Duong email about his political beneficiaries: “All of the above people are strong and relationship well established in our hands.”25

Kaplan has not been charged with any crime. She told a local news outlet in 2020 that she was unaware of the investigation and would not have knowingly accepted contributions tied to a city contractor: “I would certainly find improper contributions to be unacceptable, and would not keep such funds.”26 It is unclear whether Kaplan returned the donations she received from Duong’s straw donors.

One week after the June 2024 FBI raids, Kaplan voted to defeat a proposed ballot measure that would have given the Public Ethics Commission additional resources, including for the open CWS straw-donor investigation.27

Kaplan’s electoral record

Kaplan’s political career, including her 2025 hire by the City Administrator, spans 25 years and twelve runs for elected office.

The city just can’t seem to quit Rebecca Kaplan

The record shows that Kaplan’s political career was marked by documented ethical lapses and close association with high-profile political players who are now under federal indictments for corruption, including alleged illegal campaign contributions to Kaplan. (She has denied any involvement or awareness of the alleged crimes.)

After two failed runs for mayor and a failed run for the board of supervisors, Kaplan appeared to have run out of options for continuing in public office — her primary livelihood for two decades.

It remains unclear why the city gave Rebecca Kaplan a lucrative city job after she left elected office. City insiders have justified Kaplan’s hire as warranted on the basis of her extensive knowledge of city operations and her work on illegal dumping in particular. But the record shows that the city’s illegal dumping problems grew significantly worse during Kaplan’s tenure on the council.

Kaplan unquestionably posted many positive achievements during her tenure on the council. An accounting of those achievements is not the focus and is beyond the scope of this analysis. We note that delivering positive results is a baseline expectation of public servants, especially elected officials.

However, it strains belief that Kaplan is the only individual qualified to fill the new city job she was given — in a city of nearly half a million people, a greater Bay Area region of over 7 million people, and a state of 39 million people. The city of Oakland itself already employs numerous people with deep qualifications and experience in the same areas.

In the absence of a public recruitment or a posted job description, there was no opportunity for others to compete for the job — nor for the public even to be made aware that Kaplan was under consideration — a job which is publicly funded, and ultimately works for and should be accountable to Oaklanders.

📖

Oakland Report is an experiment in a new form of media. Our nonprofit mission is to provide reasoned, fact-based, well-sourced reporting and analysis on local government issues, focused on observable and verifiable evidence free from implicit bias.

Our guiding principles are to present the facts and evidence and let the reader decide for themselves what to think. We achieve this by focusing on what people and organizations do, not what they say.

In that spirit — and because Kaplan has shown no inclination to respond to other news outlets’ requests for comment — we did not contact Kaplan for this story. We instead chose to simply relay what the public record states, and let our readers decide for themselves.

Another of our guiding principles is to always remain open to examining and questioning our own biases, and to keep an open forum for new information that may advance our understanding — and help Oaklanders better grasp the decision-making that affects our lives.

In that spirit, we invite Kaplan to present her perspective on this article and report on her activities in her new city job. If offered, we will publish her counterpoint as presented.

Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our work, please donate. All contributions go directly to sustaining and growing our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

Note: This article was revised to include Kaplan’s comments at the Mar. 5, 2026 Privacy Advisory Commission meeting, which an alert reader brought to our attention. Our thanks to the reader for the tip.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakland Report’s charter reform series is exploring Oakland’s city charter and how it potentially could change — a question that Oakland voters may be asked on the ballot in November. This installment is focused on a proposal to reform the Police Commission through a charter reform ballot measure. A future installment will focus on ranked-choice voting and its effects on candidate quality and elections. See all eight Charter Reform series articles published to date.

Overhauling oversight

This week council member Ken Houston released a proposal to reform the city’s civilian Police Commission.1 The proposal targets three aspects of the commission that city officials and outside reviewers have identified as sources of dysfunction:

1. How police commissioners are appointed

2. Who controls the Office of Inspector General (OIG)

3. The Police Commission’s role in hiring Oakland’s police chief.

Houston’s proposal arrives after a period of institutional friction between the Police Commission and the rest of city government, marked by prolonged police chief vacancies, a revolving door of chiefs, contentious commissioner reappointment battles, and an auditor’s report finding that the oversight system lacks sufficient resources and independence to fulfill its legal mandates.

The proposed reform would require amending the city charter through a ballot measure with majority approval of Oakland voters. The proposal is scheduled for its first hearing at the Rules and Legislation Committee on May 7. If approved by the full City Council, it would go before Oakland voters in November.

Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our nonprofit work, please subscribe, share, and donate:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

A decade of layered oversight

Oakland’s current police oversight framework is the product of reform efforts responding to police misconduct cases. In 2003, Oakland Police Department (OPD) was placed under federal court supervision following the “Riders” police misconduct case. This federal oversight remains in place today, known as the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA).

In 2016, voters approved Measure LL, creating the Police Commission and the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA). In 2020, voters approved Measure S1, expanding the Commission’s authority and creating the Office of Inspector General (OIG). In 2024, voters approved Measure NN, which created a new Oakland Public Safety Planning and Oversight Commission (OPSPOC), responsible for overseeing the development of a four-year community violence reduction plan, and managing approximately $47 million per year in parcel tax funding for public safety programs.

The result is one of the most powerful civilian oversight structures in the country. Oakland is the only major U.S. city with a charter-established citizen board authorized to fire the police chief, in addition to wide-ranging disciplinary, investigative, and audit authority over the police department.

Nearly a decade in, that architecture is showing strain. A March 2026 audit by the Office of the City Auditor found that the three oversight agencies met only 26 of 43 select City Charter and Municipal Code requirements, and identified vacancies, frozen positions, low minimum staffing, and leadership turnover as obstacles to fulfilling their legal mandates.2

The auditor’s report also found inconsistencies between the Charter and Municipal Code on the hiring and removal of CPRA and OIG leadership, and recommended that the Council adopt revisions to resolve them. A proposal to revise the enabling ordinances after Measure S1’s passage has been pending Council consideration since early 2025.

What the proposed reforms would change

1. Direct appointments by elected officials

Currently, the elected city council doesn’t directly appoint people to the Police Commission. Instead, each councilmember and the mayor appoint one member to a nine-person Selection Panel, which then recruits, vets, and nominates seven of the nine commissioners. The mayor appoints the other two directly. The Commission consists of seven regular and two alternate members.

Houston’s measure would dissolve the Selection Panel. Each of the eight councilmembers and the mayor would directly appoint one regular commissioner, producing a nine-member body with no alternates.

The new proposal argues that the existing two-tier system—requiring 18 volunteers across two bodies and two meeting calendars—creates administrative bottlenecks. Council President Kevin Jenkins raised similar concerns in May 2024 in a restructuring proposal that was not taken up, citing recruitment difficulties and prolonged vacancies.3

2. Inspector General moved under the City Auditor

Under the current charter, the Police Commission hires and can fire the Inspector General. The proposed charter amendment would transfer that authority to the elected City Auditor, who would also conduct the performance reviews.

The proposed reform frames this as a question of structural independence: the OIG’s mandate to audit both OPD and CPRA creates tension when the OIG reports to the body overseeing CPRA.

The City Auditor’s March 2026 report identified the city administrator’s influence over the OIG budget as a “structural threat to independence.” City Auditor Michael Houston (no relation to councilmember Houston) separately responded to an informal proposal to house OIG within his office—noting he was neutral on the merits while flagging reporting and conflict-of-interest questions that would need resolution.

3. Police chief hiring responsibility removed from the Commission

The proposal’s most consequential change is that the Police Commission would lose its current role in recruiting and nominating candidates for the city’s police chief. The chief would instead be appointed through the same process used for other department heads—by the City Administrator with mayoral oversight. The Commission would retain authority to remove the chief by a five-member vote, alone or jointly with the Mayor.

The proposal cites the city’s recent track record on chief recruitments as justification. OPD was without a permanent chief for 15 months between February 2023 and May 2024, and the current recruitment process—launched after Chief Floyd Mitchell’s resignation in October 2025—is not expected to produce a new chief until at least July 2026, more than nine months after Mitchell gave notice.

A department in perpetual transition

The proposed reforms arrive during an extended period of leadership instability at OPD that is unmatched among major American police departments. Oakland has had 11 chiefs or interim chiefs since 2013.4 By comparison, over the same period San Francisco had three chiefs and San Jose six.

Former Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick was fired by the Commission in 2020 and later was awarded $1.5 million in a wrongful-termination case. In a news interview, Kirkpatrick stated that the city does not adequately support the police department.5

Oakland’s last permanent chief, Floyd Mitchell—the only permanent chief in nearly 15 years to resign rather than be fired or pushed out—stepped down in October 2025 after 18 months, despite a declining crime rate and progress toward exiting federal oversight.6 Contemporaneous news reports about Mitchell’s resignation cited the chief’s frustration with federal oversight and the Police Commission as factors in his decision.7

The Oakland Police Officers’ Association called Mitchell’s departure “another chapter in a troubling pattern of instability” and urged the Mayor and Council to confront the dysfunction. The Commission launched a nationwide search for a permanent police chief after Mitchell’s departure, and the extended timeline mirrors the 15-month vacancy that preceded Mitchell’s hiring. (Oakland’s police department is currently led by interim chief James Beere.)

Commissioner disputes and a Brown Act controversy

The charter reform proposal comes after months of friction between the City Council and the Police Commission over commissioner appointments.

In October 2025, the Council declined to reappoint Commission Chair Ricardo Garcia Acosta and alternate commissioner Omar Farmer, citing concerns about the Commission’s approach to oversight.

Garcia Acosta and Farmer responded to the council’s rejection with a public statement accusing the chief of refusing to address misconduct and blaming the city for tolerating “anti-commission harassment,” and sought to submit the statement to the federal NSA judge.8 Due to a loophole in state law, they were allowed to continue to serve on the commission in “holdover” status because there were no other nominees to replace them.

After the Council rejected Farmer’s reappointment a second time in January, Farmer continued serving in the “holdover” capacity. Then, on March 26, the Commission announced after a closed-door session that Farmer had been elevated to a full commissioner seat to fill a vacancy. The move drew a formal Brown Act “cure and correct” demand from Oakland resident Rajni Mandal, who argued that the appointment was not listed on the public agenda and therefore violated California’s open-meeting law.9

On April 9, City Attorney Ryan Richardson issued a legal opinion confirming that the Commission’s action appeared to violate the Brown Act. Richardson also found that Farmer, having been twice rejected by Council, was “by definition… not fully qualified to serve a new, fixed term on the Police Commission.”10

The Police Commission subsequently voted to appoint Farmer as a full commissioner on April 23—and did so without following the City Attorney’s legal requirements, asserting that the Commission has its own legal counsel and is not bound by the City Attorney’s opinion.11

What the proposed reform preserves

The proposed charter amendment would preserve the Police Commission and retain its core policy oversight functions. The Commission would retain its authority to:

• Oversee OPD policies and procedures for conformance with constitutional policing standards

• Propose and approve changes to use-of-force policies, profiling protections, and other key general orders

• Review the police department’s budget

• Require the Chief of Police to attend Commission meetings and submit annual reports

• Issue subpoenas

• Remove the police chief by a vote of at least five members.

The CPRA’s investigative functions would be unchanged. The Commission’s adjudication role in disciplinary disputes between the CPRA and the Chief of Police—through the Discipline Committee process—also would be preserved.

Political landscape and next steps

The proposed charter reform faces a complex political path. Oakland voters approved the Commission’s creation in 2016 and expanded its powers in 2020 by significant margins. Any proposal to reform the Commission will likely generate organized opposition from police accountability advocates who view the current structure as essential protection against department misconduct.

At the same time, the proposal arrives during a period of heightened public frustration with government dysfunction, chronic police staffing shortages.

OPD currently has an active police force of around 500 sworn officers, out of a budgeted 678—fewer than the 700 officers required by Measure NN. The department also remains under federal oversight now entering its 23rd year. The police officers’ union, civic leaders, and multiple former chiefs have publicly cited the complexity of the oversight environment as a barrier to effective policing and stable leadership.

The council Rules and Legislation Committee hearing on May 7 will be the first public venue for debate. If the full Council approves the proposal, the ballot measure must be filed with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters at least 88 days before the November 3 election. Then it would be for Oakland voters to decide.

Proposed ballot measure to amend the city charter to improve civilian oversight of OPD

577KB ∙ PDF file

Download

A resolution submitted by councilmember Ken Houston to Oakland City Council, Apr. 23, 2026.

Download

PART FIVE IN A SERIES

Editors’ note

Oakland Report is examining the many taxes the City of Oakland charges its residents and businesses: what the taxes were intended to pay for, how they were actually used, and whether the city kept the promises it made to voters.

Previous installments examined how the city repeatedly breaks its promises in tax measures, threatens fire station closures unless voters approve new taxes, charges residents more while giving them less, and disproportionately burdens East Oakland neighborhoods.

This installment examines the financial impact of parcel taxes — including Oakland’s latest proposed parcel tax, Measure E — on Oakland’s rental housing and the 6 in 10 Oakland residents who rent.

Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our nonprofit work, please subscribe, share, and donate.

Thank you for reading Oakland Report. Your donation in any amount helps us continue our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

Part 5

Two-thirds of Oakland’s rental housing is exempt from ‘rent control’

The City of Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program (commonly known as ‘rent control’) states that “property tax is not considered a housing service cost.” This means that landlords of rent-controlled housing can’t directly add a parcel tax increase to tenants’ rents.1

But nearly two-thirds of Oakland’s rental housing is excluded from this rule.

Oakland is home to approximately 104,144 rental housing units. Of those, only 36,234 units — about 35% — are subject to the Rent Adjustment Program’s limits on rent increases. The other roughly 68,000 units are exempt from rent control.2

For the 68,000 rental housing units that are excluded from local rent control, there is no specific rule against increasing rents to cover parcel tax increases. California state law AB 1482 caps annual rent increases at 5% plus inflation or 10% — whichever is lower — but within that ceiling a landlord can raise the rent to recover whatever costs they deem necessary, including parcel taxes.3

Even in rent-controlled housing, rents can be raised in order to pass landlords’ costs to tenants

Oakland’s ‘rent control’ rules cover a much smaller slice of the rental market than most people realize — and the rules include various mechanisms to pass increased costs to renters by raising rents, including:

1. Vacancy decontrol. Under California’s Costa-Hawkins Act, when a tenant moves out, the landlord can reset the unit’s rent to whatever the market will pay.4 Over time, excessive taxation creates upward financial pressure and incentivizes landlords to turn over units that fall below market rates, in order to recover rising costs.56

2. Fair-return petitions. A landlord who can show that the city’s 0.8% annual rent increase cap does not let them earn a reasonable profit can petition the Rent Board for a bigger increase. Property taxes (including parcel taxes) are counted as an expense in that calculation. These petitions are rare — only 8 were filed citywide in fiscal year 2024-25 — but they are an option for landlords to recover cost increases.7

3. Capital improvement pass-throughs. Landlords can petition to pass up to 70% of building improvement costs to tenants. This is not a direct tax pass-through, but it provides another mechanism for raising rents above the local rent control cap.

Studies have shown that property taxes, including parcel taxes are substantially passed through to renters. This effect is particularly relevant in Oakland, where approximately 58% of households rent.

A 2025 Federal Reserve Bank study using comprehensive unit-level rental housing data from Berkeley—Oakland’s immediate neighbor and a nearly identical rental market—found that landlords pass through $0.50 to $0.89 of every $1 in building-level property tax increases to new tenants.8

A U.S. Census Bureau study examining small multifamily buildings (1–5 units) found a short-term pass-through rate of roughly 14%, confirming measurable upward rent effects even for small tax changes.9

A German market study found that real rents fully absorbed property tax increases within approximately three years — meaning long-term pass-through approaches 100% in supply-constrained markets.10

Oakland’s Measure E aims to increase parcel taxes on rental housing by 26% – and most of the burden will ultimately land on renters

Oakland’s Measure E, if approved by voters on June 2, would tax rental housing at $131 per unit, per year, to fund public safety services. Notably, Measure E would be in addition to, not replacing Measure NN (2024), which was also promised to fund public safety services.1112

Measure E would push the total citywide per-unit parcel tax burden on rental housing from $497 to $628 per unit per year — a 26% increase. But that is only part of the total parcel tax burden on rental housing.

In addition, every multi-family parcel also owes $435 in OUSD school-district taxes (Measures G, G1, and H).

Rental housing also pays a City of Oakland paramedic services parcel tax under Measure N (1997), which ranges from roughly $14 to $72 per parcel depending on building type.

Properties in the Oakland Hills Wildfire Prevention Zone pay an additional $65 per unit under Measure MM (2024).

For a typical four-unit apartment building, the current citywide per-unit parcel tax stack alone totals $1,988 per year ($497 × 4 units), plus $435 in OUSD per-parcel taxes — over $2,400 annually. If Measure E passes, that will climb to about $2,950 per year in parcel taxes alone.

Supporters of Measure E, and of parcel taxes in general, assume that Oakland’s rent-control rules prevent the increased tax burden from being passed on to renters. However, that protection only applies to a fraction of rental housing in Oakland, and the economic evidence shows that upward financial pressure on landlords created by high taxation erode that protection, even for rent-controlled housing. As a result, the tax increase that a landlord absorbs today is likely to reappear as higher rent tomorrow.

A look ahead

In closing Part 5, we again acknowledge that taxes are necessary to provide the public services people need and deserve. This series is focused on whether the city is managing its resources appropriately, and whether city leaders are acting as responsible stewards of the public trust.

We believe that every Oakland resident — indeed, every person — deserves to have a stable home with housing costs that do not exceed 30% of their income.

Unfortunately, most Oakland residents are heavily burdened by the high and increasing cost of housing in Oakland and the region. Nearly half of Oakland households are burdened by spending over 30% of their income on housing. Over 20% of Oakland residents are severely cost-burdened.13

The city and its advocates have long argued that the city’s financial challenges require the residents to give more through higher taxes. We do not refute the fact that the city’s expenses consistently exceed the resources with which it has been entrusted.

However, the evidence suggests that the city’s latest proposed solution to that problem — another parcel tax on top of an already very tall stack — will impact Oakland’s already cost-burdened renters, only one-third of whom have rent control, and whose rents are likely to increase anyway in response to the increased tax burden the city is proposing to put on their housing.

Thank you for reading this series. Please consider donating to Oakland Report today, as we prepare the culminating study guide for this series, including key considerations for Oakland voters about Measure E. Your donation in any amount helps us to continue our nonprofit work.

DONATE TO OAKLAND REPORT

Please help us continue this series by making a tax-deductible donation today.

Donate now

Learn more

See these related articles:

Oakland Report continues its coverage of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) board of education as it tries to close a long-term budget gap and avoid sliding back into state receivership. In this installment, we look at an April 16, 2026 warning letter from the Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) to the OUSD board.

• Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) takes in more than $800 million a year for 34,000 students, making it one of the best-funded urban districts in the state.

• Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Alysse Castro issued a letter on April 16, confirming that the district may or may not be able to pay its bills over the current and next two school years.1

• Castro warns that the back pay owed under a proposed new teacher’s union contract – which has not yet been shared publicly or added to the district’s budget – “could quickly shift the District from uncertainty to insolvency.”

• Castro’s letter says that OUSD does not have a revenue problem — it has a “decision-making problem.”

• Castro issued a formal ‘Going Concern Notice’ under the California Education Code, signaling a step up in oversight that sets up “safeguards for rapid intervention if conditions worsen.”

• The Going Concern notice comes less than a year after OUSD finally got out from under 22 years of state control.2

A step up in oversight – and a step toward another state takeover

“At this time, the District is actively drawing down reserves, weakening the safeguards that have prevented insolvency to date, and continuing to increase expenditures without implementing compensatory reductions—placing both fiscal solvency and recently restored local control at risk.”

— Alysse Castro, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, Apr. 16, 2026

A Going Concern Notice is a tool that lets the county superintendent require certain actions from a school district while still allowing the school board to make its own decisions. Under Education Code § 42127.6, by April 30 OUSD must:

• Lock in all contracts through June 30, 2026

• Update its records of money owed and money due

• Turn in two separate two-year cash flow projections — one based on OUSD’s Second Interim Budget report as filed, and one that also includes every board decision made since January 31, such as the layoffs and the proposed Oakland Educators Association (OEA – teachers union) contract.

• A board-approved Third Interim Budget Report is due to ACOE by June 1, 2026.

The proposed teachers union contract — which includes up to 13% raises — is not in the budget yet, and the board has no plan how to pay for it

A main point in Castro’s letter is that OUSD is “continuing to make new commitments without a clear plan to pay for them.” The tentative OEA union contract reached on February 27 — which gives the most senior teachers a 13% raise over two years and all other educators 11%, with extra raises for special education teachers, early childhood educators, nurses, and social workers — is not included in the Second Interim budget numbers.3

Neither is the roughly $40 million, three-year Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 contract the school board approved in December, which set a $25-an-hour minimum wage for the district’s lowest-paid workers.4

“The issue is not the raises themselves, but the absence of a Board-approved, sustainable plan to support them… Local control is not simply the authority to make decisions; it is the responsibility to make hard choices and sustain them over time.”

— Alysse Castro, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, Apr. 16, 2026

The Second Interim Budget Report projects a $20.6 million shortfall in the unrestricted general fund for 2025-26, followed by small surpluses in the following years — but only if the district makes $36 million in still-unnamed cuts for 2026-27 and another $57 million for 2027-28. Without those cuts, the district’s ending fund balance would drop below zero by 2027-28.

“A series of cuts is not a plan”

Castro’s sharpest criticism is about a lack of responsible financial planning by district leadership. The district, she writes, “appears to have moved directly to balancing the budget with a series of cuts, without the intermediary step of adopting a coherent fiscal solvency plan.” In plain terms: OUSD is making cuts one at a time without a full plan that explains how all the pieces fit together.

“The District’s instability is driven by deferred decisions and unimplemented actions that continue to compound risk. Stability will follow only from making budget-balancing decisions and implementing them.”

— Alysse Castro, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools

The letter points to three plans the board started and then dropped: the 3Rs Plan, the Fiscal Vitality Plan, and the Blueprint for Quality Schools. Quoting the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, Castro notes that the district “continues to alter or bypass” its own plans “when faced with difficult decisions.”5

Close 4-3 board votes and an OEA-backed school board majority

“Collective Bargaining: The Board cannot authorize future compensation increases without corresponding tradeoffs. We share this Board’s belief in retaining great staff. However, sustainable compensation requires offsetting reductions elsewhere.”

— Alysse Castro, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, Apr. 16, 2026

Among the “Leadership Uncertainty” risks Castro calls out by name: “Recent board actions related to fiscal oversight have frequently been decided by narrow 4-3 votes, reflecting a significant divide on key decisions.”

She also notes that OUSD is currently operating without a permanent superintendent or a permanent chief business officer.

The four-member board majority — President Jennifer Brouhard, Vice President Valarie Bachelor, Rachel Latta, and VanCedric Williams — is backed by the teachers union and has voted together on several major decisions over the past year. These include the abrupt dismissal of former longtime Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell and the December 10 approval of the $102.5 million “Scenario 3” budget plan.6

See this related article:

Hours before that December vote, OEA emailed its members claiming that “OUSD does not have a structural deficit” and accusing then-Chief Business Officer Lisa Grant-Dawson of “blatant insubordination” for preparing a staff analysis that pushed back on the union’s budget math.7 (Grant-Dawson resigned two days later.)

The OEA email also explicitly called on the OEA-backed board majority to “keep cuts away from classrooms and students” (i.e., teachers) and instead cut “outside contracts, central office spending, and books and supplies.”

The three-member minority — Directors Mike Hutchinson and Patrice Berry, often joined by Clifford Thompson — has repeatedly objected to what they describe as thin financial details and a lack of clear timelines.

On March 25, Hutchinson publicly called on Interim Superintendent Denise Saddler to resign, warning that if the OEA tentative agreement is approved without matching cuts, OUSD’s 2026-27 budget shortfall will again top $100 million.8

Video clip 1. OUSD board member Mike Hutchinson sharply criticizes interim superintendent Denise Saddler and calls on her to resign on Mar. 25, 2026. (Source: OUSD)

Loss of local control of Oakland’s schools is still on the table

The District’s recent history shows a well established pattern of deferring difficult decisions and reversing or delaying corrective actions… OUSD recently regained local control after many years of state oversight. Preserving that control depends on the elected governing board making timely decisions, implementing adopted actions, and aligning commitments with capacity.

— Alysse Castro, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools

Castro closes the letter with a clear reminder that the Going Concern notice is not, by itself, a state or county takeover. “This is entirely within the Board’s control,” she writes.

But her earlier warning — from November 2025, when she reluctantly approved the adopted 2025-26 budget — still rings true in the April letter: if the state ends up stepping in, local control will have been “forfeited through inaction.”9

QUALIFIED certification of 2025-26 First Interim Budget Report

402KB ∙ PDF file

Download

April 16, 2026. Dear Superintendent Saddler and Members of the Board, OUSD filed a Qualified certification of the District’s 2025–26 First Interim Budget Report covering the period ending October 31, 2025, which the Board of Education approved on December 10, 2025. A Qualified Certification means that, based on current projections, the District may not be able to meet its financial obligations for the remainder of the current fiscal year or the subsequent two fiscal years.

Download

The OUSD board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for April 22.

BECOME A SUPPORTING MEMBER

Oakland Report is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Our mission is to provide reasoned, evidence-based, and well-sourced analyses and critiques of the policies, actions, and inactions of our local government. Donations to Oakland Report help us continue this work.

Become a supporting member

PART FOUR IN A SERIES

Editors’ note

Oakland Report is examining the many taxes the City of Oakland charges its residents and businesses: what the taxes were intended to pay for, how they were actually used, and whether the city kept the promises it made to voters.

The first three installments in this series examined how the city repeatedly breaks its promises in tax measures, uses threats of fire station closures to convince voters to approve new taxes, and charges residents more while giving them less.

This installment examines the disproportionate impact of flat-rate parcel taxes — including Oakland’s latest proposed parcel tax, Measure E — through the lens of Oakland’s historically disparate economic and demographic landscape.

Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our nonprofit work, please subscribe, share, and donate.

Thank you for reading Oakland Report. Your donation in any amount helps us continue our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

Part 4

Oakland’s regressive parcel tax landscape

A typical Oakland homeowner now pays between seven and ten overlapping parcel taxes in addition to the baseline 1% ad valorem (Latin for “according to the value”) property tax set by state law. Oakland’s largest parcel taxes include:

• Measure NN (2024): $198 per single-family parcel / $132 per multi-family unit for City of Oakland public safety services.

• Measure E (proposed): This City of Oakland tax would be $192 per single-family parcel / $131 per multi-family unit for public safety services. If approved by voters on June 2, the new tax would be in addition to, not replacing Measure NN.

• Measure G (2008): $195 per parcel for Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) operations.

• Measure G1 (2016): $120 per parcel for OUSD teacher retention.

• Measure H (2022): $120 per parcel for OUSD college and career readiness programs.

• Measure C (2022): $114.50 per single-family parcel / $132 per multi-family unit for City of Oakland library services, with annual inflation increases.

• Measure MM (2024): City of Oakland, $99 per single-family parcel (within the defined wildfire prevention zone) for 20 years, with annual inflationary increases.

• Measure D (2018): $75 per single-family parcel / $51.24 per multi-family unit for City of Oakland library services, with annual inflationary increases.

• Various Mello-Roos Community Facilities District charges, depending on subdivision.

The cumulative result is that Oakland charges among the highest taxes per capita in the state compared to similar cities.1

The combined effective tax rate of these parcel taxes, calculated as a percentage of property value, ranges from a low of 1.50% in affluent, majority-white zip code 94618 (Rockridge in north Oakland), up to 2.22% in predominantly Black and Hispanic zip code 94621 (Elmhurst in deep East Oakland).2

In other words, Oakland’s parcel taxes financially hit homes in deep East Oakland up to 48% harder than homes in Rockridge, as measured by percentage of median home value.

Oakland’s Measure E, if approved by voters, would escalate the tax disparity

If voters approve Measure E on June 2, Oakland’s disparate taxation across neighborhoods would escalate even further.

Over the 20-year life of Measure E, a typical deep East Oakland homeowner would pay over three times the share of their housing wealth compared to the share of wealth a typical Rockridge homeowner would pay, for presumably identical citywide public safety services.

The 20 years of cumulative $3,840 parcel tax payments (not including inflationary increases) would equal 0.24% of a Rockridge home’s current value, and 0.81% of a deep East Oakland home’s current value.

The disparate financial impacts of Oakland’s flat-rate parcel taxes reflect a historic trend of disproportionately burdening communities of color — a direct legacy of the racially discriminatory “redlining” policies of the 20th century, perhaps most famously documented in the landmark study and book, The Color of Law.3

A flat parcel tax is not racially discriminatory in and of itself, and it is important to note that correlation does not necessarily affirm causation.

However, economic and demographic data show that in present-day Oakland, multiple layers of flat-rate parcel taxes extract a larger effective share from the same neighborhoods that the historic discriminatory “redlining” maps of the 20th century once shaded red.

Parcel taxes are regressive

Empirical studies have concluded that flat-rate parcel taxes are regressive. The primary basis for this conclusion is that unlike ad valorem property taxes that are calculated as a percentage of a property’s value, parcel taxes typically impose a flat dollar amount per parcel regardless of property value.45

In terms of residential homes, the practical result of flat-rate parcel taxes is that low- and middle-income homeowners pay a higher effective tax rate than the wealthiest homeowners.

The data indicates that the impacts of this regressive form of taxation are particularly stark in Oakland, where parcel taxes are numerous, and wealth disparity, as measured by median home values, varies widely across neighborhoods.

As a result, the financial burden of flat parcel taxes falls most heavily on modest homes and small apartment buildings rather than on high-end homes and luxury apartments.

Studies have shown that this cumulative pattern—lower assessed values combined with higher effective rates, lower homeownership, and flat-rate assessments—produces a disparate racial impact even where the tax is nominally neutral.67

Oakland’s parcel taxes reinforce this pattern in three ways:

• They are flat. A flat parcel tax stack consumes a larger share of monthly income for middle- and lower-income homeowners— including long-tenured Black and Hispanic residents in historic neighborhoods of color.

• They are cumulative. With seven to ten overlapping parcel taxes now common, Oakland tax bills regularly add $600–$1,000 or more per year in flat assessments, irrespective of home values or the homeowners’ ability to pay.

• They increase over time. For example, Measure MM (2024) permits annual cost-of-living escalation up to 5%, and Measure NN (2024) increased the single-family public-safety parcel tax from $133.45 to $198 in a single renewal cycle.

Oakland’s parcel taxes typically include exemptions for qualifying low-income homeowners. However, uptake is limited by awareness and annual reapplication burdens, and exemptions do not address the disparity of middle-income households (who do not qualify for exemptions) paying relatively higher tax rates than wealthy ones.

Regressive taxation continues a historic trend of disproportionately burdening and displacing Oakland’s historic communities of color

Overall, the regressive nature of parcel taxes places a disproportionate burden on Oakland’s homeowners of color. The correlation of home values and racial demographics in Oakland is the legacy of racially discriminatory policies of the past.

The 1937 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation residential map graded West Oakland, Fruitvale, and the East Oakland flatlands “red” or “yellow” (thus the term “redlining”), which had the effect of denying federally insured mortgages to the non-white families funneled into those neighborhoods by restrictive covenants, segregated public housing, and racially zoned subdivision ordinances — a de jure segregation by the government at every level.8

This cycle was continued in the 1950s and 1960s with the Interstate 980 and Cypress freeway alignments that destroyed tens of thousands of homes in the city’s historically Black neighborhoods, the urban-renewal clearances that leveled whole blocks of West Oakland housing stock, and the freeway-severed flatlands that became subject to long-term municipal disinvestment.9

As a result, homeowners in affluent zip codes accumulated federally subsidized equity for decades while those in less affluent zip codes were systematically prevented from doing so in equal measure.

Today, Oakland has the deepest racial home ownership disparities in the nation for Black households. Black households in the City of Oakland had the highest mortgage denial rates of any racial group.10 A 2018 analysis found that Black households in San Francisco–Oakland could afford only 5% of available home listings, the lowest share of any major U.S. metropolitan area.11

The population of Black homeowners who must absorb Oakland’s stacked parcel taxes is both shrinking and concentrated in the city’s lowest-property-value neighborhoods—precisely the group least able to absorb the disproportionate burden.

Rising carrying costs force homeowners out, and the data offers evidence of the link between property-tax pressure and displacement in Oakland.

Oakland’s Black population has declined by 33% since 2000, even as it rose modestly at the national level.12 Nearly one-quarter (24%) of California’s Black residents now live outside the state’s major urban centers—up from 17% in 2000—largely due to housing affordability.13 Over 87% of Oakland’s residents of color live in neighborhoods that are either at risk of, actively undergoing, or have already undergone displacement or gentrification.14

Parcel tax increases are substantially passed through to renters

Studies have shown that property taxes, including parcel taxes, are substantially passed through to tenants. This effect is particularly relevant in Oakland, where approximately 58% of households rent.

A 2025 study using a comprehensive unit-level rental dataset from Berkeley—Oakland’s immediate neighbor and a nearly identical rental market—found that landlords pass through $0.50 to $0.89 of every $1 in building-level property tax increases to new tenants.15

Oakland’s rent-stabilization ordinance blunts some short-term pass-through, however, vacancy decontrol permits recapture through turnover and rent increases over time, and approaches full pass-through over five years.

Stacked across all of Oakland’s per-unit multi-family parcel taxes, a small-building tenant can absorb $250–$400 per year in pass-through parcel tax alone.

Because parcel taxes are per unit rather than scaled to value, tenants in smaller, older buildings—typical of lower-rent, historically redlined neighborhoods such as West Oakland and Fruitvale—absorb a higher per-dollar-of-rent tax burden than tenants in new luxury towers near downtown.

For example, Oakland’s Measure NN’s multi-family parcel tax is $132 per unit per year (which is itself an increase from $91 under the previous Measure Z). The tax is applied uniformly regardless of rent level or tenant income. A four-unit Oakland apartment building therefore carries $528 annually in Measure NN tax burden alone; whereas a 40-unit luxury complex carries $5,280 — a relatively smaller share of the property’s total rental income capacity.

Other considerations and counterpoints

Measure E’s proponents — and of Oakland’s high taxes in general — have cited various points which warrant acknowledgment in this context. A list of noteworthy points is provided below, without further rebuttal, for readers to review and consider:

• Oakland’s parcel taxes are promised to fund basic services like schools, libraries, and public safety — governmental services that benefit lower-income families and families of color. Proponents of Measure E assert that without the new parcel tax, reductions to these basic services will be necessary.

• Many cities, including Oakland assert that California’s Proposition 13, approved by voters in 1978, was a watershed event that decimated local tax revenues and resulted in service reductions — providing justification for local governments’ decades-long pivot to parcel taxes and other assessments to recover the lost revenue.

• Some Measure E proponents characterize the flat-rate tax amount as modest relative to typical housing costs, a fraction of a home’s overall value, and note that exemptions exist for seniors and low-income households.

• Proponents also note that the burden on rental housing is lower per unit, because multifamily parcels pay $131 per unit rather than $192 per single family home. Additionally, Oakland’s rent-stabilization ordinance inhibits landlords from immediately passing through costs to tenants of rent-controlled units.

• Measure E’s supporters also note that oversight mechanisms will monitor how the tax monies are used, and some observers note that Oakland voters have routinely approved past parcel tax measures, indicating broad popular support.

A look ahead

In closing Part 4, we again acknowledge that taxes are necessary to provide the public services people need and deserve. That is a reasonable arrangement that reasonable people agree with, ourselves included.

The issue at hand is whether the city is responsibly and equitably managing the resources it takes from its citizens, and whether city leaders are acting in the best interests of the people who have entrusted them with those resources.

We believe that every Oakland resident — indeed, every person — deserves to have a safe, stable home with housing costs that do not exceed 30% of their income.

Unfortunately, most Oakland residents are heavily burdened by the high and increasing cost of housing in Oakland and the Bay Area region. Nearly half of Oakland households are burdened by spending over 30% of their income on housing, and over 20% are severely cost-burdened.16

Much has been said and written in this journal and in other outlets about the many financial challenges the city of Oakland faces. The city and its advocates have long argued that these challenges require the residents to give more through higher taxes. This series does not refute the fact that the city’s expenses consistently exceed the resources with which it has been entrusted.

However, the evidence suggests that the city’s newest proposed solution to that problem — a new flat-rate parcel tax — will have disproportionate impacts that appear to run counter to the city’s commitment to resolving the harms caused by discriminatory practices of the past.

Thank you for reading this series. Please consider donating to Oakland Report today, as we prepare the final installment. Your donation in any amount helps us to continue our nonprofit work.

DONATE TO OAKLAND REPORT

Please help us continue this series by giving a tax-deductible donation today.

Donate

See these related articles:

Editor’s note: Our thanks and appreciation to news anchor Andre Senior and KTVU for having us on their Take 2 in the Morning show on April 17, 2026. Video courtesy of KTVU.

Transcript

KTVU - “Take 2 in the Morning”
April 17, 2026

ANDRE SENIOR:

We’ve all talked about it: Where is my tax money going?

People drive around their towns. They know they pay taxes. They’re not necessarily opposed to it because that is how your local government operates. But in Oakland, one Oakland resident has been tracking how your tax dollars are being spent. In other words, people are being asked to approve these measures that come up on the ballots, and they vote for them to improve roads or do whatever the case is. But then it seems as though an audit was done and some of the tax money, the promises that were made, where this money was going to be spent, is not necessarily ending up doing the job that it’s doing in the time that people would like to see it.

Sean Reinhart with Oakland Report, he joins me now. He is a resident of Oakland and, of course, a concerned citizen and a former city worker himself in another city. So, of course, he keeps track of all these things. Sean, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

SEAN REINHART:

Thank you for having me, Andre.

ANDRE SENIOR:

All right, so, Sean, we’re kind of getting to the bottom of this here. There’s some numbers that came out that looked at, hey, voters approved these measures to tax, to use that money to be spent on certain things. And a report came out that shows that there has been a shortfall. What did you find?

SEAN REINHART:

Yes, well, actually, this was the city’s own report. Back in February, the city administrator of Oakland issued a report called, “Multi-Year Plan to Meet Voter-Mandated Staffing and Service Levels.” And what that report basically confirmed was that the city of Oakland broke its promises in three out of the last four parcel tax measures, including the most recent one passed in 2024, Measure NN, which was passed on the promise of providing improved public safety, in particular police officers.

Measure NN required the city to maintain a minimum number of 700 sworn police officers. However, the city immediately violated that minimum. The city currently only budgets 678 police officers. Because of administrative leaves and other things, currently the city’s down to an active force of about 500 officers. So the city broke its promise there. And actually, there’s a history of that going back around 20 years, and this is all according to the city’s own reports. We have it all on our website for folks to have a look at, to be informed about what is really happening with these tax dollars.

ANDRE SENIOR:

We were just showing a description. You listed out one, two, three, four, five, six, seven of the measures that were approved by voters. I want to make it a little bit bigger so our viewers can see it.

Measure NN, public safety measure approved by voters in 2024: minimum requirements, as you see right here, minimum requirements not met. The duration for this tax is nine years. It’s supposed to collect $47.4 million, and that would go to public safety. This is a list of all the other measures where the minimum requirements have not been met yet. So I guess the question is: Sean, do we know why those requirements have not been met yet? Now, granted, when you talk about Measure NN, the duration, it was only approved in 2024. The duration for it is nine years. The requirements are not met yet. So does the city have time to rectify this situation? What do the numbers show here?

SEAN REINHART:

Well, the requirement was for those minimums to be met at the time the tax measures were passed. And so it was known at the time that the measures were put on the ballot, and that the city and their supporters were campaigning for the taxes that these minimums would need to be met. So it really was effective right away. But the city routinely has evaded those requirements by proclaiming various states of extreme fiscal necessity, which are loopholes that are baked into those past measures that allow them to bypass those requirements. So whether the city has time to rectify that discrepancy, really, that’s on the city to take the steps to do that and fulfill the promises that were there. In particular because the city is now asking voters to approve another tax this June, which kind of promises the same thing that Measure NN in 2024 promised, which was public safety services. So, another approximately $38 million per year being asked of Oakland taxpayers for pretty much the same services.

Now, I do want to emphasize that taxes are incredibly important, as you mentioned, Andre, to provide the services that people need and deserve. You know, that’s an important part of a functioning society. But it’s equally important for residents to hold the city accountable, because that helps the city serve people better. That helps city leaders to make more meaningful progress and to be better public servants. So, you know, it’s very important for folks to have this information.

I’m a librarian by trade, 26 years in local government, a longtime Oakland resident, grew up in Hayward. So, you know, just making this information available for folks to have a look for themselves, and they can decide for themselves whether these taxes are worth it and whether to approve new taxes.

DONATE TO OAKLAND REPORT

Please help us continue out nonprofit work by making a tax-deductible donation today:

Donate now

Learn more

ANDRE SENIOR:

But they should also be aware that we, that the voters, those same voters, are being asked to approve another measure that would cover the same thing that the previous measure, essentially the same things, right, that the previous measure had been asked. So, I mean, you know, looking from the outside in, this might look like a double tax to some people.

SEAN REINHART:

Yeah, by all appearances, that is what is being asked of voters here this June. And I think it’s important to understand that Oakland has the highest taxes per capita among similar cities in the state. In fact, special taxes in Oakland have increased 379% over the past 20 years. I just want to say that again: 379% increase in these special taxes over the last 20 years. Now, that’s six times faster and higher than the rate of inflation or the cost of living over that same period of time.

Now, in the last fiscal year, 2025, the city of Oakland brought in $1.6 billion in revenue. That’s an all-time high. If the city of Oakland was a person, it would be a billionaire. And like billionaires, its income has increased far, far greater than those of everyday people.

ANDRE SENIOR:

Sean, let’s look at Measure Q passed back in 2020. It was passed, a resolution in June of 2023 to suspend the park’s maintenance requirements, effectively voiding the baseline level of service promised to voters when the Measure Q tax was approved. In addition, the city failed to carry out the promised work in a timely manner. Measure Q had accumulated nearly $22 million in unspent funds by 2023, and homelessness carry forward funds exceeded allowable amounts due to the city’s lack of progress on performing the work. Can you break down what that means here? We’re talking about Measure Q here.

SEAN REINHART:

Yeah, and so that was the city auditor who had that finding, that the city had underspent by $22 million. So basically not doing the work that was promised and that voters gave up more taxes to provide with Measure Q. So three years later in 2023, the city council again declared an extreme fiscal, unanticipated event in order to evade the requirements, to basically suspend the requirement to do that parks maintenance. You know, I love Oakland’s parks. Oakland’s parks are amazing, but i think a lot of Oaklanders, if you go around parks, will agree that they need that TLC. So it’s pretty unfortunate that the money that voters put up to maintain those parks wasn’t spent in a timely manner.

See this related article:

ANDRE SENIOR:

Okay so what’s happening here, the city has this money. Because the voters approved it they’re required to spend it on this particular thing, but in a certain declaration or under a certain declaration, the city doesn’t have to spend the money on that particular thing that the voters approved it for, is that what viewers should know?

SEAN REINHART:

Yes, it’s very important to look at the fine print of these tax measures because in the measures we’ve just talked about, these loopholes are built in where, if the city can declare that there was an extreme unanticipated fiscal event, then all bets are off and the money can be used for essentially anything that the city council decides to redirect them to. A lot of voters, I don’t think they realize that that’s part of the measure. It’s certainly not part of the campaign materials that support these measures. So it basically enables a loophole that, you know, the city can break the promise pretty much at will.

And just a moment to talk about an unanticipated fiscal event. Just to be very clear, the city does have a lot of effort in planning budgets, in setting budgets, in forecasting budgets years ahead. So the city’s financial condition is very much known at the time that these tax measures are put out there. So, you know, barring some extreme event like, say, the pandemic was certainly an unanticipated fiscal event. But, you know, there hasn’t been that level of unanticipated fiscal change in recent years.

See this related article:

ANDRE SENIOR:

Okay, so if you’re watching this and we see now that, you know, if budgets are planned for ahead of time, we all know this, companies do this, governments do this, the budgets are planned for ahead of time. Barring anything unanticipated like COVID-19 or something crazy, we should already know this. So are you looking for where that shortfall is coming from the city in which they’re declaring this emergency? If they’re declaring this emergency, they can use the money for other things. Are we looking at that as a whole here? Are you looking out for what comes out of the city manager’s office about where that cash is going? And why, if it’s going to another part of the city, why did they run out of money?

SEAN REINHART:

Yeah, you know, like I said earlier, it’s very important for citizens of Oakland to hold their city accountable by just paying attention to what they’re doing, because that makes the whole system work stronger. And so that’s why we started Oakland Report at oaklandreport.org, just to keep track of those things over time and give Oakland residents the opportunity to see what the city is doing.

You know, I’ll say as far as the expenses — I myself have been in local government for 26 years, recently retired. It’s a service organization. The number one thing that the money goes toward is to pay people, which is incredibly important. City workers, they work very hard. We thank them for their service. Ultimately, they do work for us. They are public servants. The city of Oakland does pay its workers well, which is appropriate. City workers have health benefits and retirement plans, which again is very appropriate.

Unfortunately, many Oakland residents do not have that same level of health benefits and retirement benefits. Everybody should have those things. Don’t get me wrong. I really think everyone who works hard their entire life should have health benefits and retirement plans. But the reality is most Oaklanders don’t have that. Yet the city, in order to increase that pay and benefits for their employees, is asking residents to give more of their money to increase those benefits, which they themselves don’t have.

See this related article:

So again, it’s fair to compensate employees. But when the the amount of increase in that compensation far exceeds the rate of inflation, the rate of cost of living, the compensation that the people being taxed themselves receive, you have to kind of start to ask, at what point, where does the breaking point arrive? Looking at the cost of living and how much inflation has really made it difficult for folks to survive here in Oakland, and again, a 379% increase in taxes over the past 20 years, you do have to ask, have we reached that point or not? That’s really something that we just want to put the information out there so Oakland voters can decide for themselves.

ANDRE SENIOR:

And that’s what this is all about here. The work of oaklandreport.org is to just get the information in front of them. You may not realize some of the things that are baked into what you vote for.

Sean, we’ve run out of time today, but I’m hoping we can check in with you again next week because you dive into some other subjects as well, as you continue to track what goes on in the city of Oakland, and this is just good information for every Oakland voter to hear. Tracking government is not easy, but oaklandreport.org definitely tries to make it a little bit easier for you to understand. Sean, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.

SEAN REINHART:

Thank you, Andre.

ANDRE SENIOR:

We’ll be right back here on Take 2 this Morning.

SUPPORT OAKLAND REPORT

We rely on financial support from readers like you.

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit organization based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation in any amount helps us to continue our nonprofit work.

Donate

Learn more

PART THREE IN A SERIES

Editors’ note

Oakland Report is examining the many taxes the City of Oakland charges its residents and businesses: what the taxes were intended to pay for, how they were actually used, and whether the city kept the promises it made to voters.

The first two installments in this series examined how the city repeatedly broke its promises in past tax measures, and how the city has repeatedly used threats of fire station closures and other public safety cuts to convince voters to increase taxes.

We want to hear from you, our readers, what you think about Oakland’s taxes and the services they fund, and what you think about this series. Write a comment, send us a note, and share this article with others.

Most importantly, subscribe to our mailing list, share our stories, and please consider donating to help us continue our nonprofit work — accurate, unflinching, evidence-based reporting that you will find nowhere else.

Thank you for reading Oakland Report. Your donation in any amount helps us continue our nonprofit work:

Donate to Oakland Report

Learn more

Part 3

The price is going up

Shrinkflation is the practice of quietly reducing the size of a product while keeping its price the same — or raising it — in order to increase profit at the consumer’s expense.

Oakland’s city government has been doing the fiscal equivalent of shrinkflation for two decades.

The city’s total governmental fund spending has nearly doubled over the past 20 years — from $0.87 billion in fiscal year 2006, to $1.69 billion in fiscal year 2025.1

Meanwhile, the tax burden the city put on its residents’ shoulders grew even heavier still.

Voter-approved special taxes surged 379% over the past 20 years — from $31.7 million in 2006 to $152.1 million in 2025.

That’s over 6 times higher than the increase in the cost-of-living, as measured by the consumer price index, over that same period.2

This remarkable increase was due to new tax measures layered on in nearly every election cycle over the past decade.3

Oakland residents now pay the highest taxes per capita in the state compared to similar cities.4

Notably, the 379% increase in tax burden only accounts for city taxes — it does not include the numerous county, school and regional tax increases also approved by voters and charged to Oakland residents.

The package is shrinking

The city Oakland today has fewer workers than it did 20 years ago.

In 2006, the city had 3,614 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers. In 2025, it had 3,487 FTE workers — a 4% decrease.5

That relatively small decrease masks a more striking decline in the city’s most fundamental responsibility: public safety.

• Sworn police officers fell from a peak of 837 in 2008, to 678 in 2025 — a 19% decrease, and below the minimum of 700 sworn officers the city promised voters who approved Measure NN in 2024.

• The city temporarily closed two fire stations and proposed closing four more in January 2025,6 just weeks after voters approved Measures NN and MM on the promise that the new taxes would fund fire and public safety.

Despite a 93% increase in spending, the city’s own data shows little increase in basic service outcomes

The city annually reports operational outcomes in its Annual Consolidated Financial Reports (ACFRs).7 A review of this data over the past 20 years reveals short-term fluctuations in any given year — but scant long-term increases in basic public safety outcomes like emergency dispatch responses:

• Police dispatched calls fluctuated between 222,000 and 341,000 per year, with no clear long-term increase or trend.

• Fire emergency responses remained static at 50,000–60,000 per year for the past 20 years.

• 9-1-1 response times have consistently been among the worst in California, with the city failing to meet state standards for over a decade.8

One public safety outcome that did show a significant long-term change:

• Physical arrests fell from 14,908 in 2007 to 6,338 in 2025, a 57% decrease.

The ACFRs also report various non-public safety metrics which are useful for long-term trend comparisons. While a comprehensive review of every single outcome is beyond the scope of this article, a sample of common city services — such as building permits, new dwelling units authorizations, and pothole repairs — is useful for gaining insight:

• Building permit issuances fluctuated year-to-year depending on a volatile real estate market, but like public safety metrics, they exhibited no clear long-term increases or trend. Permit issuances fell from 15,674 in 2006 to a low of 11,812 in 2020, and have recovered only partially to 13,694 in 2025 — still 13% fewer than 20 years ago.

• Authorized new dwelling units collapsed from 1,641 in 2016 to just 472 in 2025, a 71% decline, reflecting both reduced demand and a city planning apparatus that has not kept pace.

• Potholes repaired showed a genuine improvement in recent years, jumping from a baseline of 8,000–14,000 per year from 2007 to 2022, to nearly 58,500 in 2025 — a fourfold increase. However, this late surge comes only after decades of under-investment in street maintenance and repair, and only after voters approved tax increases to finance bond issuances (Measures KK and U) to do the work. Additionally, a grand jury report found that the city delayed issuing the bonds for years due to the city’s chronic fiscal mismanagement.9

Where the increased spending is going: public employee compensation

The city’s data indicates that little of Oakland’s overall spending growth has gone to tangible service improvements. Instead, the city’s spending has been increasingly consumed by public employee pay and benefit costs that have consistently risen over the past 20 years, far outpacing the growth in inflation and the incomes of everyday Oakland residents.

In 2023, the average total compensation (salary and benefits) for a single full-time Oakland city employee was $237,000 — a 10-year increase of 79%.10

This is significantly higher than the median Oakland household income of approximately $102,000 — a figure that typically reflects multiple earners — and which only increased approximately 45% over the same 10-year period.11

(Approximately 55% of non-governmental full-time workers in Oakland also receive employer-paid benefits valued at approximately $25,000 to $30,000 per year.)1213

By comparison, the city of Sacramento’s average total compensation for its full-time employees rose 57% to $163,000. The city of Long Beach rose 70% to $196,000. And San Francisco (which is both a city and a county) rose 50% to $190,000.14

Oakland’s relatively high employee compensation is driven not by base salary, which is roughly comparable to peers, but by benefits that add 72% on top of base pay, compared to only 41% in Long Beach, 31% in Sacramento, and 33% in San Francisco.

The city’s ACFRs routinely cite “increases in personnel costs” as the primary factor behind expenditure growth across virtually every city function.

Oakland’s employee pay and benefits — including all the compensation increases outlined in this article — were negotiated by the city and its labor unions, and approved by city councils.

Notably, campaign finance disclosures have shown that the city’s public employee unions have routinely donated to city council members’ election and re-election campaigns over the past 20 years.

A debt that no amount of new taxes can solve

According to the city’s financial reports, the city’s annual pension benefit payments grew from $362 million in 2016 to $477 million in 2025, a 32% increase in nine years. The city’s combined net pension liability — meaning debt — exceeded $1.85 billion as of FY 2023.

The city’s five-year financial forecast projects continued $100 million-plus annual budget deficits through the end of the decade — driven largely by pension obligations that are locked in by labor agreements and will compound regardless of future hiring decisions.15

No amount of new taxes can resolve a gap this large. As a result of the city’s past financial decisions — which appear to be continuing into the present — city services continue to erode, while the tax burden on Oakland residents continues to increase as more resources are diverted into ever-growing personnel costs and long-term debt.

The city’s 2025 ACFR, while reporting a budget ‘surplus’ for the year, simultaneously warned that rising costs related to insurance, medical benefits, and pension contributions are expected to “re-emerge in future periods,” and recommended that the city continue to declare a state of “extreme fiscal necessity” in order to evade minimum public safety staffing requirements.16

Oakland’s shrinkflation is not the result of a lack of resources.

It is the mathematical consequence of a compensation structure that for decades has outpaced the city’s revenue base, the cost of living, peer cities, and the incomes of the residents who fund it.

See these related articles:

A look ahead

In closing Part 3, we acknowledge that taxes are necessary to provide the services people need and deserve. The issue at hand is whether the city is managing its resources appropriately and acting as responsible stewards of the public trust.

We believe that every Oakland resident — indeed, every person — who works full-time their entire lives deserves to have a living wage, generous health benefits, and stable retirement, like Oakland city employees enjoy.

Unfortunately, most workers who are not government employees do not have those benefits themselves — yet they are continuously asked to pay more toward those benefits for public employees.

Much has been said and written in other outlets about the many positive aspects of Oakland’s taxes and its public employees — not to mention by government officials eager to put a positive spin on the city.

This series does not seek to duplicate that well-rehearsed chorus, but to help the city instead to identify and correct the false notes that hold it back from achieving its full potential.

DONATE TO OAKLAND REPORT

Please help us continue this series by making a tax-deductible donation today.

Donate now

Learn more

Correction: The original version of this article omitted employer benefit data for non-governmental workers. A parenthetical sentence with two citations has been added to the article to provide the data.

PART TWO IN A SERIES

An embarrassment of riches

Oakland Report is taking an extended look at the many taxes the City of Oakland charges its residents and businesses: what the taxes were intended to pay for, how they were actually used, and whether the city kept the promises it made to voters.

Part 1 in this series provided an introduction and examined how the city of Oakland broke its promises to voters in three of the last four parcel tax measures.

As we noted then, taxes are necessary for a safe, functioning society. That fact is not up for serious debate.

But what happens when the government fails to provide the services it promised in exchange for new taxes — as has happened in Oakland multiple times now?

In Oakland, the city’s answer routinely is to collect even more taxes.

See this related article:

After years of cumulative tax increases, Oakland collects the highest taxes per capita in the state compared to similar cities.1

This past year, Oakland collected a record-high level of total revenue — more than $1.6 billion.2

You read that correctly: If the City of Oakland was a person, it would be a billionaire.

And like many billionaires, the city’s income has increased substantially in recent years— significantly more than inflation and the cost of living— powered by an evergreen, ever-growing source of income: taxes.

In recent years, Oakland has accelerated its total revenue growth by successfully convincing voters to approve multiple new taxes— many of them on the promise of maintaining and improving police and fire services.

The city’s revenues from voter-approved special taxes have increased by 379% compared to 20 years ago.3

That’s over 6 times higher than the cumulative change in inflation over that same period.4

This commentary takes a closer look at the city’s pattern of leveraging fire department service cuts to convince voters to approve tax increases.

We also will examine the influence of Oakland’s firefighters union on the political campaigns to pass those measures— a pattern that continues with the proposed tax increase on the ballot this June: Measure E.5

We want to hear from you, our readers, what you think about Oakland’s taxes and the services Oaklanders receive in return. We also want to hear what you think about this series. Write a comment, send us a note, and share this article with others.

Most importantly: subscribe to our mailing list, share our stories, and please consider giving a tax-deductible donation to help us continue our nonprofit work:

Donate to support our work

Part 2

A twenty-year cycle of alarms, mismanagement, and broken promises

The City of Oakland has demonstrated a decades-long pattern of using public safety cuts to manage chronic budget shortfalls.

Notably, these cuts— and threats of additional cuts— also have served as powerful catalysts in political campaigns aimed at convincing Oakland voters to approve tax increases.

A review of city financial statements, audits, and court rulings shows a consistent pattern in which the city collects voter-approved taxes promised for fire and police services, then fails to deliver the services it promised.

The resulting gaps in fire and police services then set the political stage for the city to ask voters to approve even more tax increases in order to ‘save’ and ‘maintain’ those services— even as overall tax revenues increase over time, significantly outpacing inflation.

The city has followed this playbook with fire services— and refined it considerably— over the past twenty years:

1. Announce that cuts to fire services are necessary to close budget deficits

2. Convince voters to approve tax increases by promising to ‘save’ and ‘maintain’ fire services

3. Mismanage and divert the tax revenues to other purposes, resulting in new budget deficits and announcements that fire services must face cuts again

4. Use the threat of fire station closures to urge voters to approve more tax increases.

The city is not alone in executing this playbook. Oakland’s firefighters union, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 55, has long played a significant supporting role.

The influence of Oakland’s firefighters union

A review of political campaigns in Oakland over the past two decades shows IAFF Local 55 routinely leveraging voters’ high esteem for firefighters— as well as the substantial resources the union collects, both in monetary dues and boots-on-the-ground political activism from firefighters— to influence public opinion in the political sphere.

The union’s influence includes supporting and donating to the political campaigns of city council members, who then approve the fire department budget, firefighter salaries and benefits, and labor contracts with the firefighters union.

Perhaps its biggest recent success in this area is the election of former IAFF Local 55 president, Zac Unger to the city council in 2024.6

The union’s influence also extends to financially supporting and campaigning for tax increases to collect more funding from Oaklanders for fire services.

IAFF Local 55 has repeatedly used political rhetoric that frames fire station closures and service cuts as severe threats to public safety in order to urge voters to approve tax increases over the past two decades, including Measures Y (2004), BB (2010), Z (2014), NN (2024), and A (2025).

However, an evaluation of these measures reveals a consistent record of misleading claims and broken promises.

The city has declared “extreme fiscal necessity” on multiple occasions to suspend voter-approved spending requirements on police and fire services— a legal escape hatch that has become a routine tool of budget management rather than a genuine emergency measure.

Measure Y funds were improperly used, leading to litigation, while Measure BB weakened key accountability provisions. Even after passing Measures Z and A, the city continued to face fiscal crises leading to further fire station brownouts, directly contradicting implicit promises to voters that new revenues would secure fire services. (See below for more details.)

This cycle appears to be repeating with Oakland’s Measure E, the $34 million per year parcel tax increase on the ballot this June.

Firefighters union boss threatens fire station closures unless voters approve Measure E – despite record-high tax revenues

The city and its firefighters union are again asking taxpayers for a new tax by pitching it as an essential measure to ‘save’ fire stations and other public safety services from cuts.

Notably absent from their pitch is how the city came to be in such dire financial straits as to need another bailout from taxpayers in order to provide fundamental municipal services like fire fighting— despite passing multiple new taxes in recent years resulting in record-high levels of revenues.

The city’s public employee unions, including IAFF Local 55, are backing the proposed Measure E tax increase, and have donated over $400,000 in contributions to the Yes on E campaign.7

According to campaign finance disclosures, most of the money the unions donated to the campaign appears to have been spent toward paid signature-gatherers in order to qualify the measure for the ballot— a form of political “astroturfing.”8

It appears that this approach was taken in order to qualify the measure for the June 2 ballot as a ‘citizen initiative’ that only requires a majority vote to pass instead of the two-thirds vote usually required for parcel taxes.9

Oakland Report has obtained a copy of the Argument in Favor of Measure E that was submitted by political supporters of the Measure E tax to appear on the June ballot.

The lead signatory to the argument in favor is Seth Olyer, the president of the Oakland firefighters’ union.

The opening sentence in the argument asks voters to “save our essential services,” followed by a prominent bullet point asking voters to “keep fire stations open” by approving the Measure E tax.

That combination of rhetoric — “save our essential services” and “keep fire stations open” — can be reasonably construed as an implicit threat that if Measure E does not pass, then ‘essential services’ like keeping fire stations open will not be ‘saved.’

There are other questionable claims in the argument in favor of the measure— such as that the measure will lower taxes for most homeowners, and that the money can’t be spent on other purposes. Oakland Report will examine those claims in a future article.

In this commentary, we take a closer look at the role of fire station closures in Oakland’s tax measure campaigns over the past two decades.

Twenty years of taxes, broken promises, and repeat asks

Since 2004, Oakland voters have approved a long succession of public safety tax measures — each one presented as essential to maintaining fire services, each one backed by IAFF Local 55, and nearly all followed by failures to fully deliver what was promised:

The taxes voters approved — and where the money actually went

Measure Y (2004): A court rules the city broke the law

Oakland voters approved Measure Y in November 2004 with nearly 70% in favor, directing $4 million annually to fire services and funding at least 63 additional police officers above the existing 739-officer baseline for a total minimum of 802 sworn officers. The city collected more than $20 million per year.10

Then-mayor Ron Dellums and the city council redirected $7.7 million of that money to recruit and train officers who were not assigned to the Measure Y community policing positions the tax was designated to fund.

An Oakland resident sued the city, and an Alameda County Superior Court Judge ruled in April 2009 that Oakland’s diversion of Measure Y funds was illegal. The city admitted $11–12 million had been improperly spent. The plaintiff’s attorney estimated the figure was closer to $15 million. (The judge’s decision was later overturned on appeal.)11

Local attorney Marleen Sacks sued again in 2010, citing ongoing failure to maintain the required officer count while still collecting the parcel tax.

Despite the ongoing legal challenges, from 2004 to mid-2010 the city continuously failed to meet the required 803-officer minimum, except for a brief six-month window— while continuing to collect over $100 million in Measure Y taxes over that same period.

Measure Y’s fire services requirement ($4 million/year) was maintained, but the city’s overall failure to deliver on the measure’s core promise of minimum staffing levels— and the willingness of the firefighters union to continue to lend its credibility to the city’s promises in the future— established a template the city would follow in subsequent cycles.

Measure BB (2010): Evading accountability by erasing the rules

After Oakland laid off 80 police officers in July 2010 — dropping below the 739-officer threshold that legally triggered a ban on collecting Measure Y taxes — the city placed Measure BB on the ballot. Rather than restore officers, Measure BB simply erased the minimum staffing requirement, allowing continued tax collection regardless of staffing levels in public safety departments.12

Arguments in favor of Measure BB focused heavily on violence prevention programs and claims that budget shortfalls caused by the Great Recession of 2008 made it impossible to fund the minimum number of officers required in Measure Y— but the city still needed the money.

The Oakland Tribune editorial board recommended a “no” vote, writing at the time that Measure BB would “abolish Measure Y minimum-staffing requirements altogether yet allow the city to continue collecting some $20 million a year.”13 Voters approved it anyway — under implicit threat of lost fire and police services if they did not.

Measure Q (2020): “Extreme fiscal necessity” used to void parks promise

Oakland voters approved Measure Q in 2020, a 20-year parcel tax for homeless support, parks maintenance, litter cleanup and related services. The city council declared an “extreme fiscal necessity” in June 2023 to suspend the parks maintenance provision of Measure Q — a 20-year parcel tax voters had approved in 2020. By June 2023, the measure had accumulated nearly $22 million in unspent funds because the city had simply failed to do the promised work. A city auditor’s report confirmed extensive under-spending and budget carry-forward amounts that exceeded allowable limits.14

FY2024–25 budget: Over $30 milion in ballot measure funds redirected

In the FY 2024–25 budget approved by City Council in June 2024, the city diverted over $30 million of voter-approved ballot measure funds to pay operating expenses, suspending the city improvements voters had intended those funds to support. This was the second consecutive year the city suspended voter-approved use of tax measure funds.15

Simultaneously, the city cut 72 fire department positions (including 9 fire inspectors) and 100 police positions. The city also exhausted its final $93 million in pandemic relief funds and spent down remaining ballot measure fund balances.

Budget Advisory Commission chair Jane Yang warned at the time: “We have the second highest revenue per capita in California amongst cities with 250,000 to 750,000 residents. There’s only so much we can continue to tax our fund base.”16

Measure NN (2024): Accountability was evaded almost immediately

Voters approved Measure NN in November 2024 with over 70% support. A major selling point of the measure was that it requires the city to maintain at least 700 sworn police officers by July 2026 and 480 firefighters — with the tax automatically suspended if those minimums aren’t met.17

The city, already below those minimums with roughly 675 officers budgeted, quickly invoked a declaration of ‘unanticipated extreme fiscal necessity’ to bypass the minimums and keep collecting the tax while continuing to fall short on police staffing. At the same time the city declared it was in a state of ‘extreme fiscal necessity,’ the city also announced it had a multi-million dollar budget surplus for the fiscal year.18

Public anxiety about fire station closures as political lever: a 20-year timeline

In every major Oakland budget cycle for two decades, the threat of fire station closures has been one of the city’s most reliable tools for motivating voter tax approval, even after the city repeatedly broke promises that past tax measures would prevent such closures. The sequence is consistent: announce a deficit, propose drastic fire cuts, deploy firefighters and union officials to warn of imminent crisis, then use the public anxiety to drive approval of the next ballot measure:

2003 — Fire Station No. 2 closes for 17 years.
Jack London Square’s Fire Station No. 2 is shuttered due to budget cuts. It would not reopen until 2020 — a 17-year gap. The closure establishes the city’s willingness to sacrifice fire capacity to balance budgets, setting the pattern for future events.

2004 — Measure Y: fire funding as the sell.
Measure Y placed on ballot with $4 milion/year fire services funding as a key selling point. Voters were told the tax would prevent further fire station closures. The measure passed with nearly 70% of the vote. The city then collected over $100 million over six years while failing to meet Measure Y’s minimum police staffing requirements.

2010 — Measure BB: evading minimum staffing requirements.
City lays off 80 officers, dropping below the Measure Y threshold that barred tax collection. Rather than restore staffing, the city passed Measure BB to remove the minimum altogether. Fire station brownout rotations began systemically in 2012, with all stations (except airport) participating in the rotation.

2014 — Measure Z: warning of fire cuts drives renewal tax campaign.
Measure Z renewal campaign warns of severe fire service cuts if the measure fails. IAFF Local 55 campaigned vigorously for its passage. Measure Z earmarks only $2 million/year for the fire department — half of Measure Y’s fire allocation, despite a higher total revenue base. Passes by two-thirds majority.

2021 — Rotating brownout of three engines — equivalent to closing three stations.
City implements rotating brownout of three fire engines for six-day periods, functionally eliminating three stations at any given time. No new tax is required yet, but the move maintains the public’s sense of fragility in fire services.

2023 — FY2023-25 budget browns out one engine, delays another.
Then-mayor Sheng Thao’s proposed budget browns out one fire engine and delays a previously approved new engine rollout. Fire department averts deeper cuts by winning a $27.4 million federal grant covering 35 firefighter salaries for three years — a temporary federal bailout that bought time without addressing the structural deficit.19

Oct. 2024 — Keller Fire: officials invoke L.A. wildfires to warn against cuts.
After the Keller Fire burns in the Oakland hills, city officials and fire union leaders use the Los Angeles-area Palisades and Eaton fires as a cautionary backdrop, warning that cutting fire stations would be “catastrophic.”20 Voters approve both Measure NN and Measure MM by wide margins weeks later.

Jan. 2025 — Seven stations threatened; real closures implemented.
Fire stations are closed after the hoped-for sale of the Oakland Coliseum is delayed and $60 million in revenue the city council prematurely budgeted from the sale does not materialize, triggering ‘contingency’ budget cuts.21 The city proposes closing a total of seven stations, representing 30% of OFD’s capacity. IAFF Local 55 holds press conferences warning of life-threatening response time delays.22 After intense public pressure, the council finds money to reverse some closures.23

2026 — Measure E: same playbook, next iteration, fewer safeguards.
Station closure threats serve as the primary justification for Measure E. The city’s FY 2025-2027 budget includes plans to brown out two fire stations on a rotating basis.24 IAFF Local 55 president Seth Olyer leads the campaign in favor of Measure E, stating, “We want to keep Oakland firehouses open.”25 The new Measure E tax would be in addition to, not replacing the Measure NN tax approved less than two years ago, has no minimum public safety service requirements, and no legally binding restrictions on how the funds may be used, aside from a political promise.

A look ahead

Future installments in this series will examine how Oakland’s taxes have increased in recent years compared to taxes in other cities, and compared to the rising cost of living. As mentioned above, we also will delve deeper into the claims being made by proponents of Measure E.

We also will take a closer look at the regressive nature of Oakland’s parcel taxes, and the disproportionate burden these taxes place on low-income and disadvantaged residents.

Additionally, we will explore the other side of the city’s ledger— expenditures— to better understand how the city continues to find itself in a deficit position despite record-high tax revenues that rank among the highest per capita in the state.

In closing Part 2, we recognize that firefighters are rightly regarded as heroes, deserving of gratitude and respect for dedicating their lives to dangerous work to help keep all of us safe.

That is all the more reason to question the city’s repeated failures to keep the promises it made for taxes that voters approved for fire services. It also is cause to examine the firefighters union’s participation in the political machinations that appear to have helped perpetuate Oakland’s decades-long cycle of financial mismanagement, fire service reductions, alarms, and broken promises.

BECOME A MEMBER OF OAKLAND REPORT

We rely on financial support from readers like you. Your donation in any amount helps us to continue our nonprofit work.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit organization based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sean S. Reinhart is a former library director, now retired after 26 years in local government. He served as library and community services director for the cities of Hayward and Menlo Park for a combined 16 years, where he helped build Hayward’s new main library and Menlo Park’s new multi-service community center. His post-retirement endeavors include serving as the managing editor of Oakland Report.

Sean has lived in Oakland for 15 years. He grew up in nearby Hayward. Sean enjoys exploring California’s world-renowned coastline, valleys, deserts and mountains. His creative pursuits include writing, printmaking, carpentry, music and visual arts. He enjoys meeting new people, reading, hiking, gardening, and spending time with his family.

The views expressed in our Commentaries do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing writers

“Simply put, a person who has not successfully gone through the required City Council consideration process is not qualified to serve a new fixed term as a police commissioner.”

– City Attorney Ryan Richardson

Oakland’s city attorney has issued a legal opinion affirming that ‘holdover’ alternate Police Commissioner Omar Farmer is “by definition… not fully qualified to serve a new, fixed term on the Police Commission.”1

The legal opinion outlines “at least three ways a person could fail to qualify” for appointment, one of which being if “the City Council decided not to reconfirm them.”

The city council rejected Farmer’s request for reappointment twice: on Oct. 21, 2025 and again on Jan. 20, 2026.

After the council declined to reappoint Farmer the first time, he and fellow rejected commissioner Ricardo Garcia-Acosta issued a public statement accusing the police chief and blaming the city for “anti-commission harassment.”

See this related article:

Farmer and Garcia-Acosta sought to have the OPC ratify and adopt their statement as an official submission to the federal judge overseeing the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA).2

According to Richardson’s opinion, the Oakland Police Commission (OPC) still can elevate Farmer, whose term expired in October 2025, to a vacant regular seat — but only temporarily. Richardson adds that Farmer must be replaced ‘promptly’ with a properly selected and confirmed appointee.

Police Commission violated the Brown Act

As Oakland Report reported last week, the Oakland Police Commission (OPC) announced on March 26 that Farmer had been appointed to a full seat on the commission, after emerging from a closed-door session out of view of the public.

The posted agenda for the March 26 meeting included no public notice that a commission member appointment would be discussed or decided – an apparent violation of California’s sunshine law, the Brown Act.

See this related article:

The city attorney’s April 9 legal opinion affirms that the OPC appears to have violated the Brown Act by announcing that it had appointed Farmer without properly notifying the public or taking a formal public vote:

“The Police Commission… must take action, appropriately noticed, to vote to select an Alternate to fill a vacancy. We find no support for the idea that an Alternate could somehow be automatically selected, without action by the Police Commission as a body.”

– City Attorney Ryan Richardson

Richardson’s opinion also provides guidance on the process for appointing new members to the Selection Panel, a separate entity that submits OPC candidates to the city council for confirmation.

Police commission responds by claiming there was no action taken to appoint Farmer – but the meeting video contradicts that claim

After the OPC attempted to appoint Farmer, a formal “cure and correct” demand was filed under the Brown Act by Oakland resident Rajni Mandal, calling for the OPC to either void the action or defend its legality.3

In response, OPC vice-chair Shawana Booker claimed in a letter to Mandal obtained by Oakland Report that the announcement “was not a readout of a closed session vote” and blamed staff for misstating it as such.

Commission Response to Cure and Correct Demand

157KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Dear Ms. Mandal, On behalf of the Oakland Police Commission, my letter responds to your March 31, 2026 Cure and Correct Demand. At the March 26, 2026 meeting of the Oakland Police Commission (the Commission) and after Closed Session, I (presiding as Chair) made an announcement that Alternate Commissioner Farmer was transitioning into the vacancy created by the resignation of Commissioner Wilson Riles.

Download

However, the meeting video from March 26 shows Booker announcing immediately after the closed session that Farmer had, “taken over the term of former Commissioner Wilson Riles… we all welcome you in your transition from Alternate to Commissioner Farmer.” After the announcement, the staff asked Booker to confirm that the announcement was a readout from the closed session for the record, to which Booker responded, “Yeah.”

Video clip 1. OPC vice-chair Shawana Booker announces that Omar Farmer has “taken over the term of former Commissioner Wilson Riles… we all welcome you in your transition from Alternate to Commissioner Farmer,” on March 26, 2026. After the announcement, the staff asks for confirmation for the record that the announcement was a readout from the closed session, to which Booker responds, “Yeah.”

April 9 meeting cancelled — Farmer vote postponed again

The Police Commission was set to formally re-do Farmer’s appointment yesterday — but the meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.

The April 9 posted agenda4 included a resolution “acknowledging the assumption” of Omar Farmer as a full commissioner — an apparent response to the Brown Act demand, public pressure, and national media coverage of Oakland Report’s story.5

The meeting cancellation extends the period of uncertainty over Farmer’s status until the next scheduled Police Commission meeting on April 23.

A significant setback

The city attorney’s opinion makes clear that as a ‘holdover’ alternate, Farmer can be appointed to the regular seat, but only on a temporary basis — and the duty to replace him promptly falls on the Selection Panel and, ultimately, the city council that has already rejected him twice.

For a commission that appeared to be using a vacancy-filling provision to install a twice-rejected, ‘holdover’ alternate member to a regular seat, the city attorney’s opinion is a significant setback.

PART ONE IN A SERIES

Editors’ note

Oakland Report exists because we believe that Oakland is a beautiful place, filled with extraordinary people, and it has virtually unlimited potential to become a thriving city for all people from every background and walk of life.

We know it is possible for a city government to be well-run, efficient, accountable, equitable, and—perhaps most importantly—an honest and responsible steward of the public trust.

We also know that our form of government only functions when everyday people pay attention to what the city is doing and consistently hold it accountable for its actions—even when that means speaking honest, unflinching, accurate criticisms that city leaders and advocates may prefer not to hear.

Holding the city accountable helps the city serve people better, and incentivizes city leaders to make more meaningful progress and become better public servants.

In that spirit, Oakland Report will be taking an extended look at the many taxes the City of Oakland charges its residents and businesses: what the taxes were intended to pay for, how they were actually used, and whether the city kept the promises it made to voters.

This first installment provides an introduction and overview of the key points we will explore in the coming days, starting with one category of taxes the city relies on heavily for basic services: parcel taxes.

Future installments in this series will take deeper dives into the city’s performance with specific taxes, their impacts to Oaklanders and the city overall.

We’ll explore the full extent of the tax burden the city of Oakland places on the community, in addition to the many taxes also charged by the county, schools and regional districts.

We’ll examine how much Oaklanders’ taxes have increased in recent years compared to taxes in other cities and the cost of living—and importantly, whether Oakland’s increased taxes have actually resulted in improved services and quality of life for its residents.

The series will culminate later this month with a study guide on Oakland’s taxes and key considerations for Oakland voters about Measure E, the new parcel tax the city is asking voters to approve on the June 2 ballot.1

We want to hear from you, our readers, what you think about Oakland’s taxes and the services Oaklanders receive in return. We also want to hear what you think about this series. Write a comment, send us a note, and share this article with others.

Most importantly, subscribe to our mailing list, share our stories, and please consider giving a tax-deductible donation to help us continue our nonprofit work:

Donate to support our work

Introduction

Taxes are necessary for a safe, functioning society. That fact is not up for serious debate.

The government collects taxes in order to pay for services that most people agree the government should provide. This is a foundational aspect of our country, and a reasonable arrangement that most reasonable people agree with, ourselves included.

But when the government fails to provide the services it promised in exchange for the taxes it collects — as has happened in Oakland multiple times now — then what?

In Oakland, the city’s answer routinely is to collect even more taxes.

New tax measures have appeared on ballots in virtually every election cycle in recent years, often for basic municipal services like police and parks and libraries, and Oakland voters have dutifully approved them.

After years of cumulative tax increases, Oakland now collects some of the highest taxes per capita in the state compared to similar cities.2

Oakland’s high taxes add significantly to the cost of living in one of the most expensive regions in the nation.

Many of the city’s taxes, especially parcel taxes are regressive,3 meaning that they disproportionately burden low-income and disadvantaged people, which accelerates the displacement of long-time residents out of Oakland.

Yet even as record-high tax revenues flow into to the city’s bank accounts,4 Oakland’s streets and sidewalks continue to be clogged with trash,5 its police force continues to be woefully understaffed,6 and its political leaders’ financial decision-making continues to be most charitably described as questionable at best.7

A recent survey of Oakland residents found that 70% of people surveyed said that the taxes they pay are not worth it—a result that climbed to 75% among Black residents surveyed.8

A similarly high percentage of Black survey respondents—and indeed all survey respondents—indicated that the city cannot be trusted to spend their tax dollars wisely.

The survey also registered significant levels of concern from Black residents about being displaced from their homes and out of Oakland due to Oakland’s high and increasing cost of living.

With the city’s proposed new ‘public safety’ parcel tax, Measure E, on the ballot this June, the issue Oakland voters will face is not whether more taxes are needed to support basic services, but whether the city can be trusted to act responsibly and keep its promises about how taxes will be used.

In the coming days, this series will explore all of the above considerations and more, with data and evidence to support assertions and give readers the opportunity to see and decide for themselves.

In this first installment, we take a brief look at the city of Oakland’s parcel taxes— just one subset among many taxes Oaklanders pay.

Part 1

The city of Oakland has broken its promises to voters in three of the last four parcel tax measures

According to the city’s own reports, Oakland has demonstrated a consistent pattern of financial mismanagement and failure to keep the promises it made in order to convince voters to approve new taxes.

The city’s top appointed official, Oakland city administrator Jestin D. Johnson issued a report on Feb. 10, 2026, titled, “Multi-year plan to meet voter-mandated staffing and service levels.” The report was prepared in response to concerns that the city has failed to comply with minimum staffing and service requirements promised in previous voter-approved tax measures.9

The city administrator’s report examined a total of 21 tax measures and legal agreements across multiple city funds. The report affirmed that the city has failed to meet minimum requirements in seven of 21 cases overall, including three of the last four parcel tax measures approved by voters:

The city administrator’s report then says that in order to fulfill all of the minimum requirements and promises made to voters, the city would need “new ongoing revenue sources or reallocation of existing services”—at an estimated new cost of $38.8 million per year.

Notably, voters have already approved taxes for the city to fulfill those minimum requirements and promises. Yet the city now says it needs more tax money in order to keep those promises.

Perhaps more notably, the city administrator’s $38.8 million estimate is roughly the same amount that the city council added to the city’s current fiscal year budget for an unidentified new tax measure.10

The city administrator’s estimate also is roughly equivalent to the amount the city’s proposed new ‘public safety’ parcel tax, Measure E, now aims to collect from Oakland homeowners and businesses.11

The Measure E parcel tax, if approved by voters this June, would be in addition to, not replacing the Measure NN parcel tax that voters approved for ‘public safety’ two years ago.

Broken promises and the ‘extreme fiscal necessity’ loophole

The City of Oakland has used declarations of ‘extreme fiscal necessity’ to evade key requirements in voter-approved measures—in some cases while simultaneously declaring a multi-million dollar budget surplus.

• Measure NN (2024). The city has consistently failed to fulfill the promise that the city would employ a minimum of 700 sworn police officers since the measure passed in 2024. The city currently has approximately 618 sworn officers, only around 500 of whom are on active duty. The city council has declared a continuous state of ‘Extreme Fiscal Necessity’ for the past nearly two years as justification to bypass the minimum staffing requirement and collect the tax.12

• Measure C (2022). In the very first year of this tax measure, the city fell short of the minimum General Fund support it is required to provide to the city’s libraries in order to collect the tax. In order to bypass that requirement and continue to collect the tax, the city council quickly declared a “Severe and Unanticipated Financial Event.”13

• Measure Q (2020). The city council passed a resolution in June 2023 to suspend the parks maintenance requirement, effectively voiding the baseline level of service promised to voters when the Measure Q tax was approved. In addition, the city failed to carry out the promised work in a timely manner. Measure Q had accumulated nearly $22 million in unspent funds by June 2023, and homelessness carry forward funds exceeded allowable amounts due to the city’s lack of progress on performing the work.14

Summaries of city parcel tax measures

Measure NN (2024) - Public safety

Measure NN (2024) is a 9-year tax that collects $198 for single-family parcels, alongside a 10% parking surcharge.15 It is projected to generate approximately $47.4 million annually. The measure stipulates that 60% of the tax revenues will go to police services and 40% to ‘violence prevention’ programs. The measure’s main promise is that the city will maintain a minimum of 700 sworn police personnel; however, the city council waived this promise shortly after voters approved the tax by declaring a state of “extreme fiscal necessity.”

Measure NN replaced Measure Z (2014), a 10-year parcel tax approved by voters in 2014 for police, fire, and violence prevention programs. Rates for Measure Z ranged from $51 to $100 per unit, plus an 8.5% parking surcharge, and was projected to generate $27–$30 million annually.

Measure MM (2024) - Wildfire prevention

The Wildfire Prevention Financing Act of 2024 established a 2-year tax to fund a Vegetation Management Plan within a defined wildfire prevention zone. Rates are $99 for single-family parcels and $65 per multi-family unit, capped at a 5% annual increase. It is projected to generate around $2.7 million per year.

Measures D (2018) and C (2022) - Library services

Measure D (2018), the Oakland Public Library Preservation Act is a 20-year parcel tax intended to maintain and improve basic library services, including library open hours and purchasing books and other materials.16 The initial rate was $75 for single-family parcels, adjusted annually for inflation and now over $103 in FY 2025-26. Measure D includes a clause requiring the city to budget at least $13.0 million from the general fund to its libraries each year.

Measure C (2022) is a 30-year parcel tax initially set at $114.50 for a single-family home, with annual adjustments for inflation.17 Measure C was projected to generate approximately $18 million per year. In the first year of the new tax, the city mistakenly collected $112,000 from 300 property owners who were exempt from the tax. More concerningly, the city failed to meet the minimum general fund appropriation requirement, jeopardizing the city’s authority to collect the tax at all. The city evaded consequences for this error by quickly declaring an “Severe and Unanticipated Financial Event.”

Measure C renewed and amended the previous Measure Q focused on libraries (2004), not to be confused with another, more recent Measure Q that was passed for parks and homelessness in 2020.

Measure Q (2020) - Parks and homelessness support

The Oakland Parks and Recreation Preservation, Litter Reduction, and Homelessness Support Act is a 20-year parcel tax.18 The single-family rate was initially set at $148 in FY 2020-21, and has increased to nearly $189 in FY 2025-26. Revenue is allocated at 64% for parks maintenance, 30% for homelessness services, 5% for stormwater, and 1% for audits. A city audit of Measure Q found significant underspending, with the fund balance growing to nearly $22 million by June 2023, and carryforwards for homelessness services that exceeded allowed amounts. The city council declared an “extreme fiscal necessity” in June 2023 to suspend the parks maintenance provision, breaking the promise made to voters and diverting funds intended for park services.

Measure AA (2018) - Children & youth

The Children’s Initiative of 2018 is a 30-year tax funding early education, the Oakland Promise Fund, and ‘oversight’.19 The rate was initially set at $198 for single-family parcels, and has increased to over $262 since then. The measure was delayed for several years by lawsuits disputing the voter approval threshold—a subject we will explore in an upcoming installment in this series.

Measure N (1997) - Paramedics

The Paramedic Services Act of 1997 funds paramedic and emergency medical response. Initial rates were $7.18 for single-family parcels, adjusted annually for inflation.20 City reports indicate that these funds have been spent in accordance with the measure’s purpose, however, audits in 2008 and 2011 flagged a consistently growing fund balance ($2.1 million by 2011) due to the lack of a formal long-term spending plan and reserve policy.

A look ahead

Part 2 in this series will take a deeper dive into Measure NN, the public safety parcel tax approved by Oakland voters in 2024. We will examine the city’s ongoing use of an “extreme fiscal necessity” declaration—while simultaneously declaring a multi-million dollar budget surplus—to evade Measure NN’s fundamental promise of maintaining a minimum of 700 sworn police officers. Part 2 also will compare Measure NN to the city’s new proposed ‘public safety’ parcel tax on the ballot this June: Measure E.

Part 3 in the series will examine how Oakland’s taxes have increased in recent years compared to taxes in other cities, and compared to the rising cost of living. We also will take a closer look at the regressive nature of Oakland’s parcel taxes, and the disproportionate burden these taxes place on low-income and disadvantaged residents.

Future installment will explore and expand on the other points outlined in the above introduction—along with other points that our readers may propose as we move through the series.

In closing Part 1, we acknowledge that taxes are necessary to provide public services, and we recognize that the city of Oakland uses many of its tax dollars effectively to provide services and improve people’s lives. Much has been said and written in other outlets about those positive aspects of Oakland’s taxes and services—not to mention by government officials eager to put a positive spin on the city.

This series does not seek to duplicate that well-rehearsed chorus, but to help the city instead to identify and correct the false notes that hold it back from achieving its full potential.

BECOME A MEMBER OF OAKLAND REPORT

We rely on financial support from everyday readers like you. Your donation in any amount helps us to continue our nonprofit work.

Donate

Please help us keep Oakland Report going by donating now.

Learn more

See these related articles about taxes in Oakland:

Police Commission appointment was discussed behind closed doors with no advance notification to the public

The Oakland Police Commission (OPC) has appointed ‘holdover,’ alternate commission member Omar Farmer to a full seat on the commission, in apparent violation of California’s sunshine laws and the will of Oakland city council.

• Farmer’s reappointment to the OPC was previously rejected by city council on Oct. 21, 2025 and again on January 20, 2026.

• However, Farmer continued to serve on the OPC in a ‘holdover status’ due to there being no one nominated to replace him.

• Following a closed-door session out of view of the public on March 26, the OPC announced that it had elevated Farmer to a full commissioner seat to fill a vacancy.1

• The posted agenda for the March 26 OPC meeting included no public notice that a commission member appointment would be discussed or decided.

• By bypassing the city council’s double rejection of Farmer, the OPC appears to be acting in open defiance of the council.

Thank you for reading Oakland Report. Subscribe to receive new articles in your inbox.

Subscribe now

‘Cure and correct’ demand: Police Commission violated the Brown Act

In plain terms, the Brown Act is a state law that says the government’s business, including commissions must be done in public. The law is designed to require open meetings, posted agendas, and meaningful opportunities for citizens to see, hear, review, and speak to government decision-makers before discussions are held or votes are cast.

A formal “cure and correct” demand for the March 26 appointment has been filed under the Brown Act by Oakland resident Rajni Mandal.

Mandal notified the city council, city attorney and OPC about the violation in emails obtained by Oakland Report:

Cure and Correct Demand – Brown Act Compliance (Gov. Code 54960.1)

198KB ∙ PDF file

Download

March 31, 2026. To the Oakland Police Commission: Pursuant to California Government Code section 54960.1, I am writing to request that the Oakland Police Commission cure and correct an action taken at its March 26, 2026 regular meeting that appears inconsistent with the Brown Act’s open meeting requirements.

Download

The core of the alleged Brown Act violation is that OPC’s action to select and elevate a Police Commissioner was not listed on the public agenda, and thus violated a core provision of state law.

The cure-and-correct demand calls for the OPC to either void the action or defend its legality.2

California Government Code § 54960.1 provides a specific legal process for addressing alleged Brown Act violations. An interested party may submit a written demand requiring the offending party, in this case the OPC, to “cure and correct” an alleged violation.3

The OPC has 30 days from receipt of the demand to cure or correct the challenged action. If the legislative body takes no action within the 30-day period, the demanding party has 15 days to commence a lawsuit to render the action null and void.

A power struggle in Oakland’s police oversight

For months, City Hall has been locked in a struggle between a commission determined to assert its independence and a city council wary of losing its grip on police oversight.

Farmer’s reappointment to the OPC was previously rejected by city council on Oct. 21, 2025 and again on January 20, 2026.

However, Farmer continued to serve on the OPC in a ‘holdover status’ due to there being no one nominated to replace him. Per state law and a December 2025 city attorney opinion, termed-out commission members may continue serving in ‘holdover status’ until a replacement is seated.4

Despite his position in a ‘holdover,’ alternate commission seat, and being twice rejected for reappointment by city council, Farmer is currently the chair of the OPC’s Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) Ad Hoc Committee and co-chair of the Mental Health Ad Hoc Committee, placing him at the center of some of Oakland’s most sensitive policing reforms.

See this related article:

Can a twice-rejected nominee be appointed anyway?

In theory, the police commission selection process is designed to engage community expertise in police oversight while filtering out unqualified or unproductive candidates.

In practice, this “complex selection process” is a source of administrative bottlenecks, as city council president Kevin Jenkins warned in May 2024. In his proposal to restructure the police commission through a ballot measure (which was not taken up), Jenkins characterized the current system as inefficient, citing potential biases and “fraught” recruitment environments that lead to prolonged vacancies in the commission and the Office of the Chief of Police.5

According to Jenkins, these procedural tensions manifested in a “fragile state” of governance, where the commission makes use of alternate members to fulfill essential committee functions.

The standard path to commission appointments vs. the current ‘fragile state’

Standard path (Charter section 604):

• Step 1: Nine-person Selection Panel recruits/screens candidates.

• Step 2: Candidates recommended to City Council.

• Step 3: City Council confirms four regular commissioners and one alternate; the mayor appoints three regular commissioners and one alternate

• Step 4: Regular commissioners chair key ad hoc committees (NSA, Policy, etc.).

Current ‘fragile state’:

• Step 1: “Complex selection process” leads to recruitment delays.

• Step 2: Vacancies persist in regular commissioner seats.

• Step 3: Alternate commissioners (e.g., Farmer) are elevated to chair critical committees to maintain basic oversight functions.

• Step 4: Potential dilution of oversight intensity and increased legal risk due to perceived lack of permanent, confirmed leadership.

The city council’s rejections of Omar Farmer were for reappointment nominations originating from the Selection Panel.6

However, City Charter Section 604(d)(8) states: “For vacancies occurring for reasons other than the expiration of a regular member’s term, the Commission shall select one of the Alternate Commissioners to replace the regular member for that regular member’s remaining term of office.”7

This language grants the OPC the discretionary authority to select which alternate fills a mid-term vacancy in a full commission seat. Once elevated, Farmer assumes the remainder of the vacated seat’s term. A new vacancy is then created for the alternate position, which must be backfilled by the original appointing authority (the Selection Panel, subject to council confirmation).

Oversight in the balance

The makeup of the citizen-led police commission is of material significance to Oakland’s efforts to exit over two decades of federal oversight.

The Negotiated Settlement Agreement governs the current federal oversight of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). The NSA is a 2003 federal court-ordered reform program established to oversee OPD following the “Riders” scandal in the 1990s, where officers were accused of misconduct. The NSA requires OPD to implement 51 specific tasks regarding officer behavior, including use-of-force and internal investigations.

By not following policies and procedures and undermining its credibility – and creating further conflict and rift with the rest of the city - OPC is jeopardizing Oakland’s compliance with the NSA. The judge and monitor have repeatedly said that leadership and collaboration are key factors to achieve compliance.

The NSA “Scorecard” for OPD reveals a department close to, but not quite past the finish line to exit federal oversight.

OPD oversight ‘Scorecard’ (February 2026 data):

• Staffing crisis: Only 614 sworn positions are filled out of an authorized 678. More concerning still, the police department’s operational strength is down to 495 officers.

• Administrative leaves: 17 officers are on administrative leave. Just seven of those officers, now off for 1–2 years, are burning through $2,112,588 annually in salary and benefits while doing zero police work.

• Misconduct investigations: The Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) completed 15 investigations and administratively closed five more in February 2026. Allegations ranged from “Use of Force” to “Truthfulness.”

• Compliance gaps: The department is in “Partial compliance” with Task 45 (Discipline Policy) and “Not in compliance” with Task 5 (Internal Affairs Bureau Complaint Procedures).

The irony is notable: Omar Farmer, whom the council apparently tried to block from continuing to serve on the commission, now chairs a significant ad hoc committee reviewing NSA compliance, including Task 5 and Task 45.

Furthermore, the NSA ad hoc committee’s activities appear to go beyond its charter-defined scope: in its strategic plan, the ad hoc committee has assigned itself various tasks aimed at achieving NSA compliance.8 However, their charter-defined role is to maintain a structure to provide oversight and compliance once Oakland exits the NSA.

In his role as committee chair, Farmer has repeatedly demanded information and reports for this out-of-scope activity, including as recently as March 26 — duplicating work and introducing confusion about which body is responsible for reforms. This out-of-scope activity has created conflict with OPC, OPD and city administration, and risks undermining the city’s progress toward the reforms required by the NSA.

In this respect, the success of Oakland’s exit from federal oversight now partly rests in the hands of the very man the city’s leadership twice tried to exclude.

See this related article:

BY OAKLAND REPORT AND LOCUNITY

March 25, 2026 – Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson publicly called for interim superintendent Denise Saddler to resign, calling Saddler’s performance “not good enough.”

• The interim superintendent delivered a mostly verbal summary financial and attendance report to the board on March 25, but offered no written documentation to back up her financial updates.

• Hutchinson then sharply criticized Saddler for failing to provide written financials, and for being unresponsive to his emailed questions about the district’s finances and cutting their recent one-to-one meeting short.

• In her own defense, Saddler stated that she cut the one-to-one call short and did not respond to Hutchinson’s emails because she was called away by a family medical emergency over the weekend.

• Board president Jennifer Brouhard and vice-president Valarie Bachelor defended Saddler by stating that she is responsive to their inquiries. Board member VanCedric Williams defended Saddler by emphasizing her 40 years of experience working for Oakland Unified School District (OUSD).

• Board member Patrice Berry recommended that Saddler place financial updates on every board agenda and include written materials going forward.

• Saddler, who is said to be interested in the permanent job, reports directly to the seven-member school board. She was appointed to the interim role in July 2025 after the board fired long-time superintendent Kyla Trammell-Johnson.

Video clip 1. OUSD board member Mike Hutchinson sharply criticizes interim superintendent Denise Saddler and calls on her to resign. (Source: OUSD)

‘This isn’t good enough’

“Unfortunately, because of this poor performance and we still don’t have a fiscal solvency plan, I firmly believe, Dr. Saddler, that you should resign.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson, Mar. 25, 2026

OUSD is facing an unfilled $50 million-plus budget deficit, with a potential state takeover deadline looming.

If OUSD cannot pass a balanced budget by July 1, Alameda County Superintendent Alysse Castro could be forced to recommend that the state take control of the district again — less than a year after the district emerged from 22 years of state receivership.

Returning to state receivership would again strip the elected OUSD board of most of its authority and put decisions about schools, staff, and spending in the hands of a state-appointed administrator.

In her verbal presentation to the board, interim superintendent Saddler reported approximately $65 million in savings from ‘Phase 2’ budget reductions and described a new process in which she personally reviews all contracts above $25,000. She warned that achieving budget savings is more urgent than ever.

But board member Mike Hutchinson rejected those assurances, noting that the board has never received written documentation supporting the $65 million figure. He pointed out that the district’s chief business officer (CBO) role has been vacant for several months, and that the fiscal consultant contract with Hazard, Young & Attea was set to increase to $865,000 — roughly three times the cost of a permanent CBO. (Later in the meeting, the board deferred action on renewing the contract until April 22.)

“Where do I send my resolution to get a fiscal impact analysis? Because I know the truth of the matter is there’s nobody currently in the district who can even do it.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson

Hutchinson also expressed frustration that he had sent 17 questions to the interim superintendent a few days earlier, but received no response. Saddler responded that she was dealing with an unexpected family medical emergency.

Hutchison then read his 17 questions into the public record (see below), including a demand for detailed accounting of the claimed savings, clarity on policies governing staffing decisions, and whether the superintendent will certify that OUSD can afford its tentative agreement with the Oakland Education Association (OEA).

He warned that if the OEA tentative agreement is approved, the deficit will exceed $100 million.

Hutchinson’s call for Saddler’s resignation carries no procedural force on its own, but it signals a deep fracture on the seven-member board over the district’s fiscal direction, and raises questions about the district’s transparency with respect to its precarious financial condition.

Interim superintendent Saddler’s presentation

Hutchinson’s remarks followed an approximately 30-minute verbal presentation from the interim superintendent, illustrated with slides.

Video clip 2. Interim superintendent Denise Saddler delivers a mostly verbal presentation to the school board on March 25, 2026. (Source: OUSD)

Transcript of Hutchinson’s remarks calling for Saddler to resign

“That was a very disappointing report. In the printed version, the PowerPoint that’s handed out that everyone has to take with them – all it has is stuff about the summer and highlighting some schools. Yet you proceed to just rattle off all of this other information without a document to show it or to prove it – including everything about facilities, everything about the finances.

“One of the reasons why we’re facing claims and lawsuits of antisemitism and people really upset that it hasn’t been addressed, is instead of putting your statement in writing where everyone could see, you just read it off here.

“This isn’t good enough. Not good enough at all. And the fact that there’s no financial person here to make a presentation tonight? You know, again, you mentioned that the $65 million that’s been identified against our deficit. Fine, I’ll take your number, even though we’ve seen no document to prove it, but that means we still have an over $50 million deficit for next year. There’s no moving into budget adoption when there’s a deficit that we have no way to be able to fill.

“I’m really disappointed about what happened at our last board meeting, the exchange that was allowed to happen with the consultants, and it wasn’t addressed. And I’ll talk to you privately about how upset I was in our one-on-one meeting that I only had you there for a few minutes.

“It’s just not acceptable. It’s just not good enough.

“I sent you a list of 17 questions over the weekend asking for answers. Everything from how much savings are being achieved to some of the staffing cuts that we’ve seen listed, the policy that directed those decisions, and even most importantly, where do I send my resolution to get a fiscal impact analysis? Because I know the truth of the matter is there’s nobody currently in the district who can even do it.

“You haven’t taken any actions to hire a new chief business officer, yet on today’s agenda, you’re going to be spending another $450,000 to extend the contract of the consultants who were unvetted, have an awful reputation and are giving extremely poor advice? That’ll bring their total contract to $865,000 – three times what it would have cost to keep paying a chief business officer. This is unacceptable.

“When we get to these questions later, I hope there’s somebody here from the finance department to answer the many questions that I have, and I hope you’re prepared to answer questions that I have about the extension and the contract with HYA explicitly. Because I now know that there are some real shenanigans going on and I’m going to keep saying it as long as I have to – and just so I can clearly say it before my time is up here:

“Unfortunately, because of this poor performance and we still don’t have a fiscal solvency plan, I firmly believe, Dr. Saddler, that you should resign. I’m really troubled by your tone of conversation where you make it seem like you’re going to apply for this long-term job after what’s happened in your eight months as interim superintendent.

“Nobody else has ever had a year where we got out of receivership and we’re now going to go back in, in the same calendar year. This is not the kind of history that we should be making here in OUSD. Thank you.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson

Transcript of Hutchinson reading 17 questions into the record

“One of the reasons I was so upset about not an answer is, of the questions that I sent, there should have been easy answers, actually, for all of those questions. This is not something that took any work, if we were doing things the right way.

“So what I’m going to do is I’m going to make sure I read my 17 questions here into the record so everyone can hear what I’m talking about. And again, this is the first time in my five years on the board that I’ve ever had to email the superintendent questions because I couldn’t get an answer from anyone.

1. “What supports are available for me to hold a town hall?

2. “Where do I send my resolution for a fiscal impact analysis?

3. “How many and which schools are being left with zero TSAs [Teachers on Special Assignments] in 26-27?

4. “What is the policy governing how TSAs are distributed across OUSD?

5. “How much savings did cutting TSAs achieve?

6. “What is the policy on which schools get community school managers?

7. “What is the savings from the cut in community school managers?

8. “Are community school managers still on 11-month contracts in 25-26 and 26-27?

9. “Are some teachers and TSAs still on 11-month contracts in 25-26, 26-27?

10. “What policy is there to cut middle school electives?

11. “What is the cost savings from cutting middle school electives?

12. “Have outside partners in philanthropy been asked to help fund OAL [Oakland Athletic League] staff positions?

13. “What is the total savings from the two approved RIFs – Reduction in Forces – how much of that is in the unrestricted?

14. “I need a detailed accounting of the 65 million that has been identified to address the budgetary shortfalls in 25-26 and 26-27.

15. “How are the savings achieved, and in which funds? Are dollars being taken from Measure N, Measures H and G1 to address the deficit?

16. “Is the superintendent going to sign off declaring that OUSD can afford the OEA tentative agreement?

17. “And lastly, how are you going to present a balanced budget for the board to adopt when OUSD still has a $50 million deficit for 26-27 even before the OEA tentative agreement, and if the tentative agreement is approved, the deficit will be over 100 million?

“Most of those questions should be able to be answered off the top of people’s heads – and the rest of them, all it should take is a senior staff being put in touch with me, and they could pull this information up quickly. But what I fear most of all is going on is, there’s no answer to these questions because nobody knows and nobody thought about it – which means there is no policy governing our financial decisions and we don’t have a financial person here to even be able to explain it.

“This is a complete failure and at this point I take it very personally because I also represent 50,000 constituents, and the people in District 4 deserve the same sort of treatment that everyone else seems to be giving to themselves and seem to be receiving from you. Thank you.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson

Scheduled closed-door board discussion about the interim superintendent’s employment apparently did not take place

Earlier in the meeting, the board convened behind closed doors to discuss the interim superintendent’s employment contract, but after returning from closed session, board president Brouhard reported that “the board did not discuss this matter.”

Interim superintendent Saddler’s current contract with OUSD awards her a salary of $357,054 per year plus benefits.1

The next meeting of the OUSD budget and finance committee is scheduled on April 2.2

A triumph of community self-reliance

Located at 933 Broadway in the Old Oakland district, The Bookmark bookstore stands as a symbol of Oakland’s beauty, history, and community resilience.

In a landscape often dominated by headlines of government malfeasance, incompetence and service gaps, The Bookmark is an example of the power of people and the private sector to create a sophisticated synthesis of historic preservation and modern civic action despite the chronic dysfunction of Oakland’s government.

The Bookmark is not merely a feel-good story of a successful nonprofit and retail cornerstone of Oakland’s most cherished historic district — it is a triumph of community-driven self-reliance over the systemic failures of municipal fiscal management: a community engine that converts private action into public power, and brings a private solution to a self-inflicted public funding gap.

A powerful engine of volunteerism

To understand the success of The Bookmark is to behold a machine of volunteer efficiency that thrives where Oakland’s local government routinely falters.

The bookstore’s enduring success is built on a “volunteer-first” labor model, a crucial factor in its ability to maintain the low-overhead, high-impact operations required in the modern nonprofit sector.1 Its retail operation is powered by a corps of over 100 dedicated volunteers, directed by three professional staff members: full-time manager Erin Rivero and two part-time staff. Together, they process an inventory exceeding 17,000 items ranging from rare collectibles to affordable paperbacks.2

The Bookmark’s volunteer-driven model allows the bookstore to bypass many of the traditional burdens of a commercial business by leveraging the community’s passion for books, reading and rewarding retail experiences to generate a diversified and reliable revenue stream. By minimizing personnel costs, the percentage of revenue directed to supporting Oakland’s public libraries is maximized to impressive results.

The efficiency and effectiveness of this model is evident in The Bookmark’s multi-channel approach to sales. Although foot traffic and retail floor sales anchor the Broadway storefront, the organization also leverages online sales through eBay, Amazon, Bookshop.org and other platforms. Approximately half of its sales revenue is generated this way, and the proceeds can be substantial — for example, the sale of a rare set of The Wizard of Oz classic book series online generated as much revenue as a week of retail floor sales.

The lifecycle of a donated book

The path from donated books to financial support for Oakland’s public libraries follows an orderly operational flow managed by the store’s parent nonprofit, Friends of Oakland Public Library (FOPL):

• Arrival at the 10th Street shop: Donors deliver gently used books and related materials to The Bookmark on Fridays and Saturdays between 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. The operation benefits from high visibility in Oakland’s 18 public library locations, which redirect offers of book donations to The Bookmark.

• The sorting process: Volunteers evaluate and sort the donated materials under the supervision of professional staff. Items compromised by mold or structural damage are culled, while viable media are evaluated for market demand and condition.

• Curation and retail displays: High-quality, affordable finds — typically priced between $3 and $7 — are deployed to the sales floor at 933 Broadway. The retail space is clean, well-organized, and quirky like other popular independent bookstores, featuring a wide variety of items to engage shoppers through curated displays of books, DVDs, vinyl records, board games, puzzles, and related media indicated by handmade signs.

• Online sales: Rare or valuable items — such as an 1878 History of San Francisco — are listed on digital marketplaces to extract maximum resale value.

• Affordability and “upcycling”: By maintaining an affordable price point for sales floor items, enabled by zero-cost inventory and donated labor, The Bookmark provides essential community access to affordable books. (Studies have shown that children who have access to books at home have higher educational attainment later in life.)3 The residual cash value of discarded objects — used books — is recaptured and reinvested into a fundamental civic institution that also provides affordable access to books: the public library. Items that remain unsold or surplus are re-donated to other bookstores or liquidated in monthly deep-discount sales. Truly unsaleable items are either recycled or sent to nonprofit organizations that specialize in shipping used books to communities in need around the world.

Friends of Oakland Public Library: a case study in fiscal independence

The Bookmark retail operation is a community asset that generates its own momentum without direct taxpayer subsidies. As a result, the shop helps the FOPL nonprofit retain its total financial independence from the City of Oakland.

FOPL is a case study in the power of a fully autonomous, self-supporting independent nonprofit. Founded in 1950 and recently celebrating its 75th anniversary, the FOPL has consistently maintained a clear organizational separation from municipal government, and receives no funding from the city.

This independence is not merely symbolic; it is the foundation of the nonprofit’s ability to provide consistent advocacy and funding for the city’s public library system regardless of the city’s fluctuating economic health or political winds.

History justifies this guarded independence. In the early 1990s, decimated city revenues led to the closure of eight library branches and a 31 percent drop in the book acquisitions budget.4

Meanwhile, FOPL has maintained a 75-year upward trajectory, reaching an all-time high of 1,400 members in 2025, and has granted over $4.5 million to Oakland’s public libraries since 1993, including $415,000 in the current fiscal year:

• Special Library Projects ($155,000): Funds a new Outreach Bike Fleet and the Main Library’s 75th Anniversary celebration.

• Branch Services and the African-American Museum and Library of Oakland ($86,000): Covers localized programming, facility improvements, and the seeds for OPL’s popular seed libraries.

• Adult Services & Outreach ($50,500): Supports digital literacy classes and author honoraria.

• Teen Services ($48,300): Finances the Oakland Youth Poet Laureate program and after-school programs.

• OPL Administration ($48,000): Provides staff training and scholarships for Master’s degrees in Library Science.

• Community Relations ($17,200): Supports graphic design and volunteer appreciation efforts.

• Children’s Services ($10,000): Core funding for Summer Reading and Winter Bingo community literacy programs.

FOPL consistently steps in to innovate and create community-driven solutions to community needs

FOPL’s autonomy from the city is key to its ability to innovate where the government cannot or will not. While the city struggles with basic services like safety, infrastructure and cleanliness (not to mention libraries), FOPL consistently funds library improvements, professional development, and popular community programs like the Oakland Youth Poet Laureate, Seed Libraries and “Bike Fix” clinics in East Oakland. These programs are not mere perks; they are valuable community services essential to sustain a thriving city, delivered with a speed and flexibility that Oakland’s municipal bureaucracy rarely matches.

The takeaway: some community institutions can and do thrive when they are decoupled from the city of Oakland’s fiscal instability and mismanagement. As long as the city stays out of their way, FOPL can provide the stability that the municipal government has repeatedly failed to deliver.

This financial resilience stands in contrast to the complex, redundant web of public taxation that currently serves as the library’s fragile lifeline. Unfortunately, while the bookstore flourishes through private enthusiasm and operational agility, the municipal library system it supports remains precariously tethered to a web of special taxes and general fund deficits.

Parcel taxes and the “double-dipping” dilemma

To fully grasp the challenging landscape of library funding in Oakland, one must first understand the role of parcel taxes in Oakland’s financial picture. These targeted property assessments — of which there are many — are a symptom of a struggling General Fund and the city government’s frequent mismanagement of it.

When the city fails to cover fundamental services — like public libraries — that the citizenry expects to receive through the baseline taxes residents and businesses already pay into their municipal budget, the city routinely asks voters to approve additional taxes to fill the city’s self-inflicted financial void. This has contributed to the city’s decades-long reliance on tax measures to sustain basic services like public library operations.

The complex funding of Oakland’s libraries is a paradox that borders on a fiduciary shell game. As voters are asked to approve more special parcel taxes to “save” their library branches (a consistently winning electoral message), the city’s inclination to provide funding for its public libraries from the General Fund tends to recede.

This paradox has become a point of recurring friction. Residents are effectively taxed twice — once through general property and business taxes and again through specific assessments — to sustain a single service. This “double-dipping” effectively allows the city to use parcel taxes as a mechanism to siphon General Fund support away from its public libraries.

In anticipation of this, minimum funding requirements were baked into the language of library parcel tax measures to prevent the city from diverting General Fund dollars away from public libraries.

Nevertheless, the history of these parcel tax measures shows a city increasingly reliant on supplemental taxation rather than fiscal responsibility:

• 1994 (Measure O): A $29 parcel tax established to halt the library branch closures of the early 1990s.5

• 2004 (Measure Q): A 20-year extension that established a $9 million General Fund “floor” to prevent the tax from simply replacing city spending.6

• 2018 (Measure D): Added $75 per single-family parcel tax, and established a $12,992,267 General Fund floor.7

• 2022 (Measure C): A 30-year extension to generate approximately $18 million annually, and raising the General Fund floor to $14.5 million.8

By fiscal year 2022–23, the cumulative weight of Measures Q, D, and C saw total tax revenue climb to $32.8 million.9 Despite this windfall, the city’s financial situation continued to be characterized by chronic mismanagement.

A 2024 City Auditor’s report found that Oakland fell short of its Measure C General Fund appropriation requirement by $62,406 in fiscal year 2022–23.10

This was more than a mere accounting error; it effectively was a breach of the social and legal contract in the measure itself. According to the legal language of Measure C, if the city fails to meet the minimum General Fund floor specified in the measure, the parcel tax may not be collected. The $62,406 shortfall technically invalidated the city’s authorization to collect up to $18 million in taxes from the voters—a substantial legal, financial and political liability.

In response, the Oakland City Council adopted a resolution declaring a “Severe and Unanticipated Financial Event.” This declaration allowed the city to bypass the mandatory Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for library funding — a tactic city leaders have used to evade minimum requirements in other parcel tax measures like Measure NN, which required a minimum of 700 sworn police officers — a level the city has failed to achieve since the measure passed in 2024.11

As noted by prominent local government think-tank SPUR, Oakland has become overly reliant on special taxes for basic services that should be funded by the General Fund.12

To avoid a “double-dipping” scenario in which the city used parcel taxes to replace General Fund dollars — a practice known as “supplanting”— the measures mandated a minimum General Fund appropriation floor. Under Measure D, this floor was set at nearly $13 million. With the passage of Measure C in 2022, the city’s obligation escalated to a $14.5 million minimum.

Audit data revealed a persistent “administrative inertia” to meeting the measures’ requirements. As noted above, in the very first year of Measure C, the city fell short of the required General Fund funding floor by over $62,000. Furthermore, the city’s Finance Department mistakenly collected $112,000 in taxes from 300 property owners who should have been exempt. The city claimed that these errors occurred because staff were unaware of the new Measure C rules and continued to use outdated Measure Q procedures.

Architectural legacy: 933 Broadway and the historic Old Oakland district

Fortunately, while the city’s fiscal foundation strains under the historic weight of its government’s administrative shortcomings, the physical edifices of the library system find strength in a different kind of history.

The relocation of The Bookmark to 933 Broadway in 2024 was in part a strategic maneuver to anchor neighborhood revitalization efforts in a historic landmark. By occupying an 1880s building at the corner of Broadway and 10th, the FOPL nonprofit created a cherished retail touchstone that serves as a bridge between Old Oakland’s architectural heritage and its modern civic life.

Located across the street from the Oakland Convention Center, the Bookmark retail space is a model of aesthetic and functional integration, featuring a savvy display sensibility and large windows that invite the community into an engaging and affordable retail environment.

The relocation of The Bookmark to Old Oakland was more than a business move; it was a metaphor for institutional resilience. In its relatively new location in Old Oakland, the store has found a home that reflects a commitment to the city’s architectural and cultural soul. By transforming a 19th-century relic into a successful retail anchor, the project demonstrates that “place” remains a vital component of community identity.

The interior’s welcoming, old-is-new-again atmosphere is achieved through adaptive reuse, from the building itself to the furnishings and used books for sale inside. This use of recycled materials reinforces the theme of the organization’s philanthropy.

According to The Bookmark’s store manager, the move from a previous location described as “dark and off the beaten path” to this high-visibility historic site has catalyzed a “new beginning,” significantly increasing foot traffic and transforming the store into a prized landmark.

Crucially, this preservation was not achieved via city heritage grants, but through the same community spirit that drives the store’s daily operations. The historic beauty and visibility of the physical space now serve as an advertisement for the power of private initiative over government inertia.

The community as the ultimate service provider

The enduring success of The Bookmark and FOPL is a demonstration that private, community-led initiatives possess a transformative power that flourishes when the local government fails to deliver. The success of these organizations proves that the most effective public services are often those originated and maintained by the citizens themselves, bypassing the dysfunction of Oakland’s government bureaucracy and mismanagement.

This is evident in the impact of services the FOPL provides. According to the FOPL website, when one patron at the Elmhurst Branch used the “Cell Phone Fix-it Clinic” — a program funded by a FOPL grant — they weren’t just getting a technical repair; they were recovering irreplaceable photos of a deceased family member. This human heart of service, alongside programs like the aforementioned “Bike Fix” project and citywide Seed Libraries, represents a level of community care and innovation that standardized government programs rarely achieve.

The Bookmark is a masterclass in a retail model where community waste — used books — is systematically reclaimed and converted into civic capital. While traditional municipal services rely on the heavy hand of public mandate, this operation thrives on the voluntary redistribution of private property — a community-led ecosystem where the value of discarded objects are recaptured and reinvested into the institution that fosters Oakland’s literacy: the public library.

In this respect, The Bookmark is more than a bookstore; it is a monument to the power of community resiliency and the enduring value of the uniquely American spirit of innovation and independence.

As Oakland navigates fiscal uncertainty and chronic financial shortfalls, the Bookmark and FOPL are a testament to the fact that when a community takes ownership of its cultural resources, it creates a model that is not only sustainable but superior.

The Bookmark is, in a way, a living rebuttal to bureaucratic mismanagement: a private, community-led solution to a public funding gap, existing entirely outside the municipal ledger. Now imagine if in addition to this, the city of Oakland were to provide the funding levels required to achieve its public library system’s full potential.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sean S. Reinhart is a former library director, now retired after 26 years in local government. He served as library and community services director for the cities of Hayward and Menlo Park for a combined 16 years, where he helped build Hayward’s new main library and Menlo Park’s new multi-service community center. His post-retirement endeavors include serving as the managing editor of Oakland Report.

Sean and his family have lived in Oakland for 15 years. He grew up in nearby Hayward. Sean enjoys exploring California’s world-renowned coastline, valleys, deserts and mountains. His creative pursuits include writing, printmaking, carpentry, music and visual arts. He enjoys meeting new people, reading, hiking, gardening, and spending time with his family.

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakland Report’s charter reform series is exploring Oakland’s city charter and how it potentially could change — a question that Oakland voters may be asked on the ballot in 2026. This installment is focused on the city council’s consideration of increasing its own pay through the charter reform ballot measure. The next installment will focus on ranked-choice voting and its effects on candidate quality and elections – a topic the Mayor’s Working Group on Charter Reform did not address. See all seven Charter Reform series articles published to date.

Council seeks an up to 125% salary increase

Today, the city council rules and legislative committee is set to propose up to 125% pay raises for themselves through a charter reform ballot measure that would require voter approval.1

Oakland Report readers will remember that City Council recently awarded cash bonuses and “triggered” pay raises to its public employee unions,2 even after they previously awarded unions cumulative 79% raises over ten years, increasing their pay 2.5 times higher than inflation during that same period.3

Those same unions are now campaigning for a new parcel tax on Oakland homes and businesses to extract even more tax revenue from Oaklanders — already among the highest-taxed in the state.4

Meanwhile, the city council has continued to declare a state of “extreme fiscal necessity” for the past two years running, and the city’s finance department has forecast a structural budget shortfall of $115 million to $135 million annually through 2030.5

Councilmembers could receive salary and benefits far above the area median income

The new proposal from the Mayor Barbara Lee’s Working Group on Charter Reform recommends amending the City Charter to make city council positions full-time, prohibit outside employment, and set compensation through a benchmark survey of other “strong-mayor” cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego.

• Oakland’s current city council salary is $108,803, and is set to rise to $114,678.34 on July 1, 2026.6

• By comparison, the median household income in Oakland is approximately $102,000.7

• San Diego pays its council members a salary of $183,545,8 and Los Angeles pays $244,727.9

• If the proposed Oakland city councilmember raises are approved by voters in a charter amendment, city councilmembers’ salaries would increase up to 68.7% if matched to San Diego councilmembers’ pay, and up to 124.9% if matched to Los Angeles council pay.

• Los Angeles city councilmembers are among the highest-paid municipal lawmakers in the nation.10 This high pay is largely due to a long-standing policy linking their salaries to those of municipal judges, resulting in salaries exceeding peers in cities like New York and San Francisco.

With full-time benefits, councilmember total compensation could exceed $300,000 per year

If voters approve the proposal to designate Oakland city councilmembers as full-time employees, Oakland would pay health premiums up to the Bay Area Kaiser rate ($3,039 per month for family coverage), plus CalPERS pension contributions, insurances, and payroll taxes.11

Including full-time benefits at current costs, Oakland city councilmembers could receive up to $318,145 per year in total compensation, if the charter amendment is set to the Los Angeles benchmark and is approved by voters.

City of Oakland employee benefits are generous, including lifetime defined-benefit pension payouts for members and their beneficiaries

If the charter amendment is approved by voters and city councilmembers become eligible as full-time employees, councilmembers would become eligible to receive the city’s standard benefits package, increasing total compensation substantially.

As of July 2024, the annual base salary for Oakland city councilmembers currently is $108,803, which is higher than the area median income of $102,000.12 Councilmember salary currently is governed by the Public Ethics Commission (PEC), and is adjusted bi-annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the preceding two years, with a maximum increase of 5% per year.13

The City of Oakland pays its full-time employees 100% of the monthly premium up to the Bay Area Kaiser rate, which for 2026 is a maximum of $3,039.04 per month for family coverage.14

Additionally as full-time employees, councilmembers would participate in the state retirement system, CalPERS, which offers lifetime defined-benefit pension plans. The city makes substantial employer contributions to its employees’ pension plans, calculated as a percentage of payroll — a long-term financial liability to taxpayers. Employee contribution rates vary by tier, such as 13% for Tier III in the city’s 2026 Benefits Matrix.15

Help us reach our goal of 10,000 subscribers

Subscribe now

Additionally, full-time status would entail participation in the city’s life and accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance equal to 100% of the employee’s annual base salary, and access to a voluntary 457(b) deferred compensation plan. The city also pays for vision coverage (maximum monthly family rate of $19.75 for 2026), and short-term and long-term disability plans.

There currently are 12-year term limits for Oakland city councilmembers, which enables incumbents to continue to seek re-election (and thus accumulate more years of service toward their CalPERS pensions) for over a decade – thus increasing the amount of their lifetime monthly retirement payouts.

Prohibition on outside employment could make councilmembers more beholden to special interests and campaign donors

The proposal to substantially increase councilmembers’ pay also seeks to prohibit councilmembers from accepting any other outside employment while in office.

Proponents argue that a full-time council can dedicate more time to legislative duties, policy development, budget analysis, and oversight of city departments.16 These proponents argue that by providing market-aligned compensation, the proposal would eliminate the need for outside employment, directly mitigating conflicts of interest.17

Proponents also claim that higher pay reduces financial barriers to running for office, potentially broadening the candidate pool to include those who are not independently wealthy.18

Conversely, governance scholarship suggests that full-time, highly-paid legislative positions can foster a “professional political class,” increasing incumbency advantages and potentially distancing representatives from constituents.19 The Mayor’s Working Group itself notes that prohibiting outside employment could reduce councilmembers’ direct engagement with professional sectors and community networks.20

Banning outside employment ostensibly mitigates direct conflicts of interest but entails a potential risk: if councilmembers become solely reliant on their city salary and benefits, their financial security becomes directly tied to re-election.21 Research suggests that this dynamic could make them more beholden to special interests and campaign donors.

Become a supporting member of Oakland Report. We rely on our readers to provide financial support to continue our nonprofit work.

Learn more

Studies of U.S. state legislatures found that pay increases were associated with legislators spending more time on fundraising and constituent services, rather than direct lawmaking. As the financial stakes of holding office rise, so does the effort required to secure the campaign funding necessary to retain it.22

Designating councilmembers as full-time employees also raises the question as to whether they would then seek additional paid staff support on the assumption – not stated in the charter reform amendment – that council members would then have more time to focus on council work and thus desire more paid staff to help them carry out that extra work. For example, San Diego individual council district offices have staffing levels ranging from 15.00 to 17.50 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs).

Fiscal impact to Oakland taxpayers

If the charter reform is approved and salaries are benchmarked to other large cities, the total annual employer cost per Oakland councilmember will increase significantly. Assuming an 8-member council, the total fiscal impact varies based on the chosen benchmark:

Other elements of the proposed charter reform amendment

Oakland Report has extensively covered the other elements of the proposed charter amendment through our Charter Reform series. The three main components of the Mayor’s Working Group’s proposal are:

Build Legislative Capacity: Create permanent Legislative & Budget Analyst office to provide analysis of budgets, fiscal impacts, policy interactions, and staffing implications and give the Council enhanced oversight authority.

Return the Council to an odd number to prevent ties: Phase out the at-large seat to create a seven-member council, an odd number that eliminates the need for mayoral tie-breaking and thereby maintains clear separation between legislative and executive functions.

Clarify the Role and Compensation of the City Council: Full-time service is generally assumed to clarify this, and align salaries and rules on outside employment accordingly.

— from Mayor’s Working Group on Charter Reform proposal

Why are councilmember pay raises included in the charter reform proposal?

Taken in the context of Oakland’s long history of corruption, for example the recent indictment of former Mayor Sheng Thao on federal corruption charges, the proposal to increase councilmembers’ compensation raises a number of ethical questions:

If city councilmembers’ livelihoods depend on re-election, does that incentivize them to be even more susceptible to influence by special interests that can help them keep their lucrative jobs and accrue more benefits, not to mention the political powers of their office?

How will the prohibition against outside employment be monitored and enforced? What if they take outside work anyway – who would take the action to enforce violations? If councilmembers break the rule, would Oaklanders just have to wait until the next election, or try to mount an expensive recall campaign? Would their council pay be suspended? Would city councilmembers take action against their council colleagues? Or would literally nothing happen?

Is giving councilmembers substantial pay raises really just a political play to prevent the councilmembers from actively opposing the charter reform proposal’s key element of giving the mayor more power and the city council less power, by promising the councilmembers a big financial payday?

22

Ibid. Hoffman and Lyons.

---

Correction: The original version of this article erroneously stated that there currently are no term limits for Oakland city councilmembers. The article has been corrected to reflect that city councilmembers currently have 12-year term limits.

---

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

BY EMMET GARDNER

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakland Report is launching a new series featuring analyses and commentaries by Oakland youth writers ages 13-24. We invite submissions from other youth voices in Oakland. Do you have something to say on this issue or others? Visit our About page for more information.

UC’s decision to eliminate standardized testing from admissions was counterproductive

How do you evaluate the future of 200,000 people? This is the difficult problem that the University of California (UC) admissions system faces every year when high school students from around the country apply to the UC undergraduate system.

According to the UC undergraduate admissions summary, over 200,000 applicants have applied to the UC system each year since 2021, with an acceptance rate of around 70 percent. The top schools – Berkeley and Los Angeles – have acceptance rates as low as 9–10 percent.1

UC admissions officers use a variety of metrics and considerations to make these admissions decisions, including high school grade point average (GPA), extracurricular activities, personal essays, and other factors.

However, one specific metric has come under significant scrutiny since 2020: standardized testing.

The SAT and ACT are the two primary tests used in admissions by U.S. colleges. In response to a lawsuit claiming the tests are discriminatory, UC dropped the tests from its admission process in 2020.

Based on an analysis of multiple empirical studies on the subject of standardized testing and its effects on university admissions,2 the evidence suggests that the decision by UC was counterproductive:

• Eliminating test results from admissions took away an important tool that helped admissions officers identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds who otherwise might have been overlooked. Including a high SAT score raised admission chances for disadvantaged students by 7.3 percent (absolute), while the comparable effect for advantaged students was only about a 3.7 percent.

• SAT math scores are especially valuable as an indicator of quantitative readiness for STEM curriculum, helping to identify students who are likely to excel in the curriculum, and those who are likely to struggle.

• Importantly, removing standardized testing eliminated all of these benefits without eliminating socioeconomic bias. It simply shifted the socioeconomic inequalities into other parts of the students’ applications.

• Evidence shows that 74.5 percent of the Black–White test score gap is due to unequal access to resources and opportunities, and is not due to an inherently racially-flawed exam. These unequal access factors shape not only standardized test scores, but GPA, extracurricular activities, and virtually all other aspects of college applications.

• Removing test scores from the admissions process weakened UC’s ability to evaluate academic readiness while ignoring the real causes of racial disparity.

If UC’s admissions goal is fairness and accurate prediction of student success, the most logical decision is a test-optional policy that strengthens merit-based evaluations, not pretending that a test-free policy is a replacement for the deeper systemic reforms that achieving equity actually requires.

Lawsuit claimed racial and economic bias

On May 21, 2020, the UC Board of Regents voted to remove standardized testing from admissions consideration for the 2020–2021 admissions cycle and onward. The primary factors accelerating UC’s policy shift away from standardized testing were claims of racial and economic bias, including a lawsuit.3

Supporters of standardized tests argue that the SAT/ACT provides admissions officers with additional data that helps them identify high-achieving students across socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, Yale’s admissions dean stated that test scores, “gave them a better sense of whether students had excelled in their circumstances and were ready for the university’s academic rigor” when used alongside other application components.4

The University of California justifies its decision to remove standardized testing by claiming it hurts diversity and equity goals. However, its decision is unsupported by evidence: by removing standardized tests, UC also removed an accurate predictor of college success and weakened its ability to identify standout students.

UC argues that eliminating standardized testing was necessary because current tests contain an inherent racial bias.

When first deciding to move away from standardized tests, the University of California Academic Senate created a standardized testing task force with the purpose of evaluating and advising the UC Senate and Board of Regents on whether standardized tests served a valid role in admissions.5

In their 2020 final report, the task force found that the average SAT score by race is:

• 1356 for Asians

• 1338 for Whites

• 1166 for African Americans

• 1122 for Hispanics.

According to the task force report, the discrepancy amongst African American and Hispanic applicants can be attributed to unequal access to testing resources, such as quality of K-12 schooling, test prep and tutoring, and the time and money required to retake the test. Since underrepresented minorities are more likely to face economic disadvantages, standardized tests are thus a measurement of racial inequalities as much as academic readiness.

As a result, UC has argued that relying on standardized testing reinforces societal inequalities by rewarding those who have access to greater financial and institutional support.

Additionally, uncompensated SAT score differences between African-Americans and Hispanics versus Asians (the highest scorers) decreased only by 16 and 4 percent, respectively, after admission.6

UC said that these small changes in the gap after admission indicate that admissions officers must actively compensate for score differences across demographic groups through their process of comprehensive review. Therefore, they argue, it demonstrates that test scores work against UC’s stated goal of equity.7

Racial differences in test scores are a consequence of socioeconomic disparities, not an indication of inherent racial bias

At first glance, the racial score differences presented by the standardized testing task force appear very striking. While it is true that minority students score lower on standardized tests than White and Asian students on average, critics of such gaps fail to consider the root causes of test bias.

To better understand what these racial gaps actually reflect, a 2018 large-scale meta-regression analyzed 165 peer-reviewed studies on racial standardized testing score gaps. The researchers found, “socioeconomic status, including factors such as income, wealth indicators, parental education, as a whole explains 74.5% of the gap”.8

The findings suggest that racial differences in test scores are a consequence of socioeconomic disparities, not an indication of inherent racial bias. Thus, claiming an inherent racial bias is a correlation-causation fallacy.

Instead, what this evidence suggests is that the racial score gap is actually a reflection of a systemic issue created by unequal access to resources, academic preparation, and educational opportunities–factors that fall under socioeconomic status.

Additionally, the bias that these socioeconomic factors create isn’t unique to standardized tests; it materializes in GPA, extracurricular activities, and other educational opportunities.9

Removing standardized tests does not eliminate inequity

Since these other components of college applications also reflect socioeconomic bias, removing standardized tests does not eliminate inequity—it only shifts the emphasis onto other, similarly biased factors.

Furthermore, demographic data from the UC’s reported undergraduate admissions summary suggests that removing standardized test requirements resulted in no significant demographic shift in the admitted student population.10

There is a clear shift in the 2019–2020 admission cycle, before the change in no-test policy went into effect, but no further shift after the policy change. In the 2019-2020 admission cycle, the acceptance rates for Black and Hispanic students rose around twelve percent when comparing five-year period means (Figure 3) 11

This increase was significant (p-value < 0.001) indicating statistical significance , but in the years following the policy change there was no significant shift (p-value 0.324) in admissions demographics (Figure 4).

Because the demographic increase precedes the policy change, it cannot be caused by it. Therefore, the claim that eliminating standardized tests improved diversity and equity is not supported by the timing of the data.

High school GPA is a stronger predictor of college graduation than ACT scores

Regardless of whether these standardized testing bias concerns are substantiated or not, critics of tests still claim that high school GPA should be used as an alternative assessment of student quality due to it being a better predictor of sustained effort and long-term success through college, as measured by graduation rates.

• In predictive models examining college graduation rates, high school GPA was found to be a much stronger predictor of whether students graduated from college than ACT scores.12

• A one–standard deviation increase in high school GPA more than doubled the likelihood of graduating compared to not graduating (coefficient = 0.708; odds ratio = 2.03), even after controlling for ACT scores and institutional characteristics.

• By contrast, in the combined GPA and ACT model, the ACT coefficient was statistically insignificant (–0.016), indicating that ACT scores added little independent predictive value beyond GPA.

• Similar patterns appear in the four-year graduation model, where GPA remained strongly significant (odds ratio = 1.95), while ACT showed only a small positive association (odds ratio = 1.11).13

The difference in predictive strength between GPA and ACT supports UC’s position that high school GPA is a more meaningful indicator of long-term performance than a standardized exam. Potential explanations for this discrepancy may be that, unlike standardized tests, which are measured at a single point in time, GPA reflects sustained performance over multiple years, which may materialize in college success and graduation, more so than standardized tests.

College GPA is closely correlated with standardized test scores

Even though standardized tests add little value when predicting graduation rates, this does not prove they are useless in their entirety and thus should be removed. In fact, graduation rates, although a useful metric for colleges, do not show the full extent of students’ college success. An important piece of context that is overlooked, when only focusing on graduation rates, is how students perform in college, not just if they met the requirements to graduate.

Help us reach our goal of 10,000 subscribers.

Subscribe now

Instead, a more direct metric of college performance is college GPA, a metric that is correlated with standardized test scores.

In the UC’s standardized testing task force report, they found that across all students, GPA-only predictive models explain only 16 percent of the variation of first-year college GPA. In comparison, SAT-only models explain 21 percent of the variance in first-year college GPA.14

This discrepancy matters because it shows that standardized tests capture academic information that high school GPA alone does not, making them a valuable metric for predicting college success.

This is not to fully discredit GPA as a predictive metric for college GPA. In fact, the most important finding of the task force’s report is that in GPA + SAT combined models, the percent of first-year GPA variance explained rises to 26 percent, showing the importance of having both measures.15

These findings show that standardized tests serve as a valid academic metric that improves the UC’s ability to distinguish between applicants based on their academic potential, and that they should be reinstated into college admissions to improve on its goal of predicting students’ collegiate success.

Standardized tests help identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds

Standardized tests help identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds and are especially useful for identifying high-achieving STEM majors.

• According to a 2025 working paper, reporting a high SAT score at or above 1420 during test-optional policies raised admission chances for disadvantaged students from 2.9 percent to 10.2 percent, a 7.3 percentage point increase, while the comparable effect for advantaged students was only about a 3.7 percentage point increase.16

• For disadvantaged students, the significantly larger percentage point increase compared to advantaged students shows how admissions officers don’t evaluate test scores in a vacuum. Instead, they interpret scores in context, meaning a high SAT score carries more weight when it comes from a student whose background offers fewer academic advantages.

• On the other hand, advantaged applicants often have better access to stronger high school course offerings and academic extracurricular activities, making their academic strengths visible through other parts of their application.

• For some students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those same context clues are weaker or not present at all, making high standardized test scores one of the few ways to demonstrate academic readiness.

Effectively, standardized tests help admissions officers recognize high academic achievement in places where it otherwise might have been overlooked.

Standardized tests help identify potential standouts not just in high school, but also at the college level

Standardized tests are not only useful in identifying standouts at the high school level, but also in identifying potential standouts at the college level.

Studies have shown that for physics and math majors in particular, not a single student with a SAT math section score below 600 achieved a college GPA above 3.5, the minimum threshold for admission into graduate school.

Additionally, the researchers found that “only for [SAT math scores] well above 700 do students have more than a 50 percent chance of obtaining GPA > 3.5”.17

Such a clear SAT math cutoff for a 3.5 college GPA, an indicator of subject mastery, demonstrates the usefulness of standardized testing for identifying core proficiency and therefore the likelihood of success with STEM curriculum.

Become a supporting member of Oakland Report. We rely on our readers to provide financial support to continue our nonprofit work.

Learn more

The high probability of students who score higher than 700 in achieving a 3.5 college GPA not only signals potential high achievers, but also the potential high achievers with the strongest likelihood of excelling in the curriculum. Therefore, standardized testing is especially useful in UC admissions for distinguishing applicants who are most likely to thrive in STEM majors, where math competency is a core requirement for success.

Together, the data on disadvantaged students and STEM majors demonstrate that reinstating optional standardized tests would strengthen UC admissions by revealing high-achieving disadvantaged students and more accurately identifying high-achieving students in STEM majors.

Standardized tests have been proven to give consistent, reliable results.

In addition to improving the predictive accuracy of college GPA, standardized tests have been proven to give consistent, reliable results.

A 2010 research paper on standardized tests found that retaking the SAT or ACT only improved scores an average of 20 points per section, noting that, “The use of average vs. peak SAT score has little impact on our subsequent analysis.”18

These findings show that standardized tests aren’t easily “gamed” through repeated attempts, but instead produce a reliable score output that reflects consistent academic ability. This reliability is especially valuable in college admissions, where other measures, such as GPA, are drastically affected by differences such as grading standards and course access that vary significantly across high schools.

Essentially, standardized tests provide UC campuses with an academic metric that is predictive of college GPA, as well as being consistent and reliable across applicants.

The University of California’s decision to remove standardized testing was meant to eliminate racial and socioeconomic bias, but the evidence shows it instead sacrificed a valuable admissions tool without actually addressing the inequities it seeks to eliminate.

The views expressed in our Commentaries do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing writers

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Emmet Gardner is a student-leader at Bishop O’Dowd High School with a strong focus on youth STEM education and peer mentorship. Over the past three years, he has worked closely with Kids Teach Tech, an organization dedicated to providing technology and engineering education to underserved youth, and is a teacher at their UC Berkeley Programming Summer Camps.

Building on this experience, Emmet is currently focused on expanding Kids Teach Tech’s reach into Oakland, aiming to bring hands-on STEM opportunities to the local community. He believes in using education as a tool for opportunity and the power of student-led initiatives to drive meaningful change.

18

Ibid. Hsu and Schombert.

---

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

BY LOREN TAYLOR

Editor’s note: This commentary was originally published by Black Action Alliance on March 18, 2026 under the title, “What the data actually says about Oakland’s Black community.” We are publishing it with citations added for Oakland Report readers to review and comment on.

We invite counterpoint commentaries from other leading voices in Oakland. Do you have something to say on this issue or others? Visit our About page for more information.

What new polling data says about Oakland’s Black community

Every few months, a poll drops in Oakland and the conversation immediately turns to who’s winning or losing politically.

At the Black Action Alliance, we read poll data differently. We read it as a community report card — a measure of whether Black Oakland is being heard, whether its needs are being met, and whether the systems meant to serve our community are actually doing their jobs.

This month, the East Bay Polling Institute released its Q1 2026 Survey of Oakland voters, conducted February 12–18, 2026 by EMC Research (n=700).1 Embedded in that survey is a cross-tabulation data set that allows us to isolate the views of Black and African-American respondents who reflect the lived reality of our community.2

What they told pollsters is striking, sobering, and in some ways clarifying.

This is not a partisan analysis. It is not an endorsement of any candidate or ballot measure. It is a community accountability document — a clear-eyed look at what Black Oakland said, what it means, and what it demands of the institutions, leaders, and systems that claim to serve us.

A community feeling the full weight of Oakland’s failures

The clearest finding in this data is that Black Oakland is carrying a disproportionate burden from the city’s dysfunction. Across virtually every issue tested in the survey, Black respondents expressed higher alarm than the city’s overall voter population — not marginally higher, but significantly so.

When asked to rate how “extremely concerning” various issues were, the Black community separated itself from the broader electorate on issue after issue. The chart below tells the story:

The Black community registered significantly higher alarm on cost of living (+19.5 percentage points above the citywide average), school quality (+14.4 points), housing affordability (+14.3 points), illegal dumping and blight (+12.1 points), and homelessness (+10.1 points). This is not the voice of a community that has given up. It is the voice of a community that is paying attention, feeling the consequences, and demanding better.

On virtually every issue tested, Black Oakland registers higher urgency than the city at large. They are not disengaged — they are acutely aware that things are not working.

It is also a rebuke of the false narrative that Black residents are politically passive or difficult to engage. In fact, 78% of Black respondents say they follow the Oakland city government closely — 4.7 points higher than the overall electorate. They are engaged. And they are frustrated.

Displacement is the defining crisis

Perhaps no finding in this data set is more urgent than this: 38.4% of Black respondents said they are likely to leave Oakland, compared to 33.8% of the overall electorate. And when asked why they would move, the top reason for Black residents diverged sharply from everyone else.

• The overall electorate cited crime and public safety as the top reason to leave (35.7%).

• For Black respondents, crime was still cited (32.7%) — but it was essentially tied with cost of living and affordability, cited by 30.2% of Black respondents. That is 16 percentage points higher than the citywide average of 14.2%.

What keeps Black Oaklanders here: homeownership and housing stability (20.9%) and personal history and roots (11.1%). These are people rooted in this city by choice and by legacy. But the economic ground beneath that rootedness is eroding in real time. An anti-displacement strategy is not a nice-to-have. It is the single highest-urgency issue the data reveals for the Black community.

A crisis of trust that precedes any conversation about revenue

Oakland is currently considering asking voters to approve additional taxes to fund city services.3 Before that conversation can meaningfully proceed, any honest observer must reckon with what this poll reveals about trust.

73.6% of Black respondents disagree that the City of Oakland can be trusted to spend their tax dollars responsibly. 75.4% say the taxes they currently pay are not worth it. And 67.5% rate the city’s financial management as “Poor,” with 84% rating the city’s overall fiscal health as negative.

75% of Black Oakland says their taxes are not worth it. That is not opposition to public investment. It is a demand that accountability come before new asks.

It is worth stating plainly: this is not reflexive anti-tax sentiment. This is a community with a long memory of paying taxes into systems that have not served them — and a clear-eyed assessment of whether current leadership has earned the right to ask for more. The data suggests the answer, right now, is no.

The Black Action Alliance has long held that accountability must precede investment. Commitments without dollar amounts are not commitments. Timelines without enforcement mechanisms are not timelines. The community data affirms this principle. Any new revenue proposal must include specific, measurable, enforceable accountability conditions. Full stop.

Oakland’s schools are failing the community that needs them most

The survey data on public education is among the most striking in the entire poll, and speaks directly to the intersection of institutional failure, fiscal crisis, and community trust that defines the current moment in Oakland.

Black respondents rated OUSD poorly across every dimension tested.

• 74.6% view the school board unfavorably.

• 73.4% give OUSD leadership an overall negative rating.

• 76.6% rate the quality of education in Oakland public schools as negative.

• 78.1% rate OUSD’s financial management as negative, with 80.3% expressing no confidence in OUSD’s ability to resolve its budget challenges.

For Black Oakland, which has more children enrolled in OUSD public schools than any other group (42.7% of Black respondents with children), these numbers are not abstract. They are a daily reality: parents watching schools struggle with overcrowded classrooms, teacher turnover, and a district administration that cannot manage its own finances.

The survey also asked a forced-choice question: Is it better to keep neighborhood schools open, or consolidate them to improve district finances and educational quality? Black Oakland was more divided than the overall electorate on this question — 46.3% for consolidation, 43.1% for keeping schools open, with 10.6% undecided.

That ambivalence is instructive. This community is not opposed to hard decisions. It is waiting for leadership that makes those decisions honestly, transparently, and in genuine partnership with the families most affected.

Black Oakland has not given up on public education. It has lost confidence in the specific leaders currently running the system. Those are very different problems with very different solutions.

Safety: what the Black community actually wants

The data on public safety offers a nuanced portrait that defies easy political categorization. 92.1% of Black respondents said crime and public safety are “concerning” — the highest concern level of any group for any issue. Nearly one in three (32%) personally knows someone who was a victim of violent crime in the last 12 months.

• On policing levels, 71.2% of Black respondents said policing should be increased.

• On surveillance technology to address crime, 66.1% said they support it.

• 88.9% agreed that homeless encampments should be cleared from public parks and sidewalks — 10 percentage points higher than the citywide average.

These numbers push back against narratives that suggest Black Oakland is uniformly opposed to law enforcement investment. The community wants safety.

What the data makes clear is that it also wants accountability, transparency, and assurance that those investments will be managed competently and equitably.

There is a wide gap between what the Black community is asking for and what it is receiving. Closing that gap requires leadership that is willing to be honest about how wide it is.

What the data demands of our institutions

A poll is only as valuable as the use to which it is put. The Black Action Alliance is committed to using data like this not as political ammunition, but as a community accountability tool — a mirror held up to the systems and leaders that claim to represent and serve Black Oakland.

What this mirror shows is a community that is:

• More financially stressed and at risk of displacement than any other group in the city.

• More alarmed about the failures of city government, the school district, and quality of life.

• Deeply skeptical that existing leadership will manage resources responsibly.

• More politically engaged and attentive than the city’s overall electorate.

• Clear about what it wants — safety, stability, accountability, and schools that actually work.

What this community deserves — and what the Black Action Alliance will continue to demand — is leadership and institutions that meet that urgency with equivalent seriousness. Not rhetoric. Not vague commitments. Specific plans, dollar amounts, timelines, and accountability mechanisms.

That is the standard we hold ourselves to. That is the standard we hold our elected officials to. And that is the standard the data in this poll confirms Black Oakland is ready to demand.

Read the complete survey results and cross-tabs:

East Bay Polling Institute - Complete Survey Data

773KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

The poll of 700 registered Oakland voters, fielded Feb. 12–18, finds that while 55% of respondents believe Oakland is off on the wrong track and 53% rate the city's overall quality of life negatively, residents are not giving up on their city. When asked about their future, only 34% say they are likely to move out of Oakland, with respondents citing a sense of community, belonging, and homeownership as their top reasons to stay.

Download

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Loren Taylor is a third-generation Oaklander who brings his background as an engineer, management consultant, and community leader to improve outcomes in communities across the country. He served on the Oakland City Council representing District 6 from 2019-2023, and is an elected delegate to the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee.

Loren founded Empower Oakland, a civic engagement and community empowerment organization, and currently leads Custom Taylored Solutions, LLC, a social impact consulting firm where he guides mission-driven for-profits, nonprofits, and government agencies in better delivering on their visions for social change.

The views expressed in our Commentaries do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing writers

3

Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland: $34 million property tax increase appears headed for June ballot.” Oakland Report, Mar. 3, 2026. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20260303-34-million-property-tax-increase

---

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

Oakland Agenda Watch provides short summaries of key items on public meeting agendas that catch our attention. Today we take a look at the 2026 Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan presented to city council on March 16, 2026.

Oakland’s homeless population is growing by 1,000 people per year

City Council meeting, Mar. 16, 2026, agenda item 6.16

According to a new Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan produced by the city’s housing and community development department, over 2,500 people in the city become newly unhoused every year. Oakland’s system facilitates approximately 1,500 exits from homelessness annually, resulting in a net increase of over 1,000 homeless individuals per year.1

According to the anti-displacement plan, the actual figures on new incidences of homelessness are likely higher:

“These estimates neither include those who return to homelessness (as opposed to becoming newly unhoused for the first time) nor do they include those who become unhoused but do not enter a shelter program. Thus, while 2,550 is the estimate of new homelessness using current data, it is unfortunately an undercount.”

– from City of Oakland 2026 Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan

Alameda County’s homeless population decreased 3%. Oakland’s went up 9%

Oakland has grappled with a difficult and growing problem for the past several years: the more money the city spends to alleviate homelessness, the worse the problem appears to become.

With hundreds of millions of dollars spent regionally on homelessness programs, Oakland’s unhoused population has continued to swell.

According to the anti-displacement plan, the total homeless population in the city grew by 9% between 2022 and 2024, reaching 5,485 individuals.

The number of unsheltered individuals in Oakland—those living on the streets, in tents, or in vehicles—grew by 10% to 3,659 people.

Meanwhile, the homeless population in Alameda County declined 3% during the same period.

Oakland’s total population of 444,000 is approximately 27% of Alameda County’s total population of 1.64 million.23

By comparison, Oakland has 58% of Alameda County’s homeless population.4

A new Point-in-Time homeless count for 2026 is scheduled to be released this spring, followed by a comprehensive report this fall.5

The anti-displacement plan notes that among racial groups, Black residents have the highest relative rate of homelessness. Black residents make up approximately 22% of Oakland’s general population, but account for 52.5% of the total unhoused population, 47.9% of the unsheltered population, and 59% of all new entries into homelessness.

The plan cites a legacy of historic redlining,6 predatory lending practices, and systemic disinvestment in Black communities as primary drivers of the racial disparity.

Evictions since Oakland’s three-year moratorium was lifted

Most evictions were paused for over three years by the City of Oakland’s emergency eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the moratorium was lifted on July 14, 2023, evictions began again, and at higher numbers than in pre-pandemic years. Between October 2023 and September 2024, landlords filed an average of 223 evictions per month in Oakland, a 59% increase compared to the pre-pandemic year.7

According to the anti-displacement plan, Oakland eviction filings represented approximately 43% of all eviction filings in Alameda County in calendar years 2019 and 2024. The eviction moratorium appears not to have resulted in a relative change in that aspect.

The plan says that according to 2020 Census data, 23% of Alameda County households are renters, and 38% of all tenant households in the county live in Oakland. Therefore, the Oakland eviction filing rate appears to be relatively high.

Oakland plans to spend $1.06 billion to cut homelessness 50% in five years – and it isn’t enough

Despite substantial levels of investment and effort, the net count of unhoused individuals in Oakland continues to climb.

An analysis of the city’s anti-displacement budget suggests that Oakland and Alameda County’s financial commitments fall well short of what is required to achieve the city’s goal of reducing homelessness 50% in five years and eliminating homelessness entirely in ten years.

The city has quantified the cost of its 50% homelessness reduction goal, and the result is $1.06 billion.

The anti-displacement report further states that “if homelessness prevention is not adequately scaled,” $202.3 million more would be needed per year – an additional $1.01 billion over five years:

“According to the model, if homelessness prevention is not adequately scaled, Oakland’s overall homelessness solution system will increase in cost by over $200 million in 5 years. While preventing homelessness for a household costs the City approximately $10,000, providing housing for that same household once they become unhoused, could cost the City over $230,000 in capital housing development investments alone.”

– from City of Oakland 2026 Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan

At the current annual spending level of $122 million per year to facilitate 1,500 exits from homelessness, the current cost per household facilitated to a successful exit is $81,333. That average does not include the capital and ongoing costs of housing.

The focus of the anti-displacement plan is on the city’s non-capital funding sources and activities, meaning it does not cover housing production and preservation activities. (These activities were discussed in the city’s 2023-2027 Strategic Action Plan.)8

Given the significant gap between the total cost and the actual resources available, the result is a goal that the current budget cannot meet:

• Current annual funding: $122 million (Measure Q parcel tax, Oakland General Fund, Alameda County).

• Estimated required investment to achieve homelessness reduction goals: $406 million annually.

• Annual funding gap: $284.3 million.

• 10-year outlook: A total estimated cost of $3.2 billion to end unsheltered homelessness in Oakland.

Oakland relies heavily on a network of community-based organizations, but outcomes are vague

The city’s portfolio of anti-displacement programs appears comprehensive on paper, but its lack of coordination, scale, and accountability are deficiencies in practice.

Oakland relies heavily on a network of community-based organizations and legal clinics to execute (practice) the city’s anti-displacement strategy in exchange for funding support from the city.

Unfortunately, many of these partners operate with constrained finances, and some do not consistently track outcomes.

A city audit in 2022 showed9 that Oakland spent $70 million on similar homelessness programs between 2019 and 2021, but the organizations that received the funds neglected to track outcomes to assess how effectively that money was spent.10

See this related article:

‘The system is designed to exhaust you’

The city’s commission on homelessness identified “system exhaustion” as a primary driver of homelessness, where the barrier to remaining housed is not just financial, but bureaucratic.11

Comments from focus group participants illustrate this aspect of Oakland’s system failure:

“If you called the [resource hotline] or they give you all these resources and other numbers to call. There is none. They put you back in the line of calls and they send you here, they send you there. But nobody has the right information for the right guidance of where you need [to go] – who is the person you need to speak to and how can I get the help... It was ridiculous to a point you give up. You give up.”

“The system is designed to exhaust you.”

– from Commission on Homelessness focus groups. Feb. 25, 2026.

A contributing factor to this shortcoming appears to be extreme staffing shortages. According to a report from the city’s human resources department, the city’s employee vacancy rate was approximately 22% as of April 2025, with the Workplace and Employment Standards department seeing a 36% vacancy rate.12

The anti-displacement plan provides additional data and covers several other areas of concern, including rent burden, overcrowding and doubling-up, housing stock age and habitability, and foreclosures.

The plan also outlines implementation strategies, such as targeted prevention, encampment outreach, coordination between service providers, more shelter beds, deeply affordable housing, and ongoing rent subsidies.

Read the full plan here:

Anti Displacement Strategic Action Plan 2026

2.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The City of Oakland (City) Housing and Community Development Department’s (Oakland HCD) Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan (Plan) describes the approach the department will take to increase housing stability and prevent further displacement and homelessness for Oakland residents.

Download

Other notable agenda items

• Forever emergencies. As usual, the March 16 city council agenda included resolutions to renew three local emergency declarations, some of which have been in place for decades. This now-routine practice continues these formal states of emergency with no substantive review:

  • HIV/AIDS public health crisis. Agenda item #6.1

  • Medical cannabis. Agenda item #6.2

  • Homelessness crisis. Agenda item #6.3

  
  One could fairly argue that homelessness is a real and present crisis in this city, and that a declaration that the city is in a homelessness “state of emergency” is justified. But cannabis is now legal and available for medicinal and recreational use. And while HIV/AIDS remains a serious condition, it is now considered a manageable chronic disease.
  
  Ostensibly, these emergency declarations allow the city to access certain funds or streamline procedures in response to a crisis. But the city council’s perpetual renewal of emergency declarations with no review, no clear goals or measurements, and no sunset criteria has turned them into permanent policy fixtures divorced from the present, rather than temporary crisis-response tools. This reflects poorly on the city council’s credibility and seriousness with respect to what it qualifies as an emergency, and its rationale for making and renewing emergency declarations.
  

• Gender-affirming care. Council members Zac Unger, Rowena Brown and Charlene Wang sponsored a resolution:

  • “Reaffirming Oakland’s commitment to the right of its transgender, gender-nonconforming, intersex and two-spirit (TGNCI2S) residents and employees to obtain gender-affirming care without discrimination; and demanding healthcare providers and insurance carriers operating within the city to adhere to state and local laws mandating access to medically necessary healthcare, including gender-affirming care.” Agenda item #6.6.
    

• Council members and staff travel to Philadelphia on taxpayers’ dime. Council members Kevin Jenkins and Zac Unger seek to reimburse council member Jenkins, his deputy chief of staff, and council member Unger’s deputy policy analyst up to $2,500 per person for their travel expenses while attending the National Forum for Black Public Administrators in Philadelphia. Agenda item #6.11.
  

• Posey Tube improvements. The city of Oakland and Caltrans seek to amend an existing agreement between the two agencies to facilitate the start of construction on Caltrans’ Oakland-Alameda Access Project (OAAP) – a 3-year, $175 million upgrade to improve connectivity and safety at Posey Tube. The project will involve major traffic disruptions, including 8 full weekend closures and 20–25 nighttime closures of Posey Tube, the nearly mile-long, underwater connection between Oakland and Alameda. Agenda item #6.13.

Oakland Report is by no means comprehensive in our coverage of public agendas in Oakland. The scope and frequency of public meetings are far more than we can presently cover.

You can see the full Oakland City Council agenda and meeting materials at the city’s meeting calendar page.

BECOME A SUPPORTING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

Become a supporting member

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents.

Learn more