The city council is already counting the money — they added $40 million in hoped-for income to the city budget, assuming that voters will approve the new tax.
More tax on working Oaklanders (parcel tax is a property tax but easier to sell to a gullible public) to pay for pensions in a city that is already one of the highest tax rates in the state but has the fewest vital services. This is not a MAGA vs. Progressive issue. This is just crazy.
With respect to potholes, you may find these two facts interesting:
1) Oaklanders already have authorized the City of Oakland to increase taxes -- twice -- since 2016 to fix potholes and other road maintenance needs, by financing the issuance of a total $1.45 billion in infrastructure bonds, with $640 million dedicated to transportation projects including street repaving.
2) Despite these 9-figure investments by Oakland taxpayers toward basic infrastructure like road repairs, Oakland's Pavement Condition Index (PCI) in 2023 was rated at 57 -- in the "At Risk" range. Meanwhile, neighboring Orinda’s PCI rating was a dismal 48 in 2012 -- in the “Poor” range -- but a decade later in 2023, Orinda’s PCI rating had improved to 84 -- in the “Good” range -- after that city's voters approved sales tax and property tax increases to fix Orinda’s public roads.
If Orinda can do it, why can’t Oakland? It can’t just be the difference in median income and tax revenue between the two cities. The City of Orinda’s operating budget is a fraction of Oakland’s. Orinda’s total operating expenditures in FY 2023-24 were a paltry $27.9 million compared to Oakland’s $1.66 billion.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated!
Orinda maintains 93 miles. Oakland maintains 830 miles. I agree with the spirit of the comparison, but the magnitude of the task is not comparable. Oakland needs to pave a MINIMUM of 25 miles per year for 25 years. When finished, start all over again. It’s all time and money. More money means less time. Who will demand a minimum of “25 for 25”?
Josh R. -- Thank you for your comment. A few things:
1. If Orinda maintains 93 miles of roads, and Oakland 830 miles, then Oakland has around 9 times as many road miles to maintain as Orinda does.
2. Orinda's budgeted general fund expenditures for FY 2025-26 are approximately $26.7 million. By comparison, Oakland's budgeted general fund expenditures in FY 2025-26 are around $787.7 million -- 29.5 times higher than Orinda's. (And this doesn't even account for the massive expenditures in Oakland's special funds such as capital improvement funds, which also dwarf Orinda by comparison.)
3. Orinda (population 19,300) spends around $1,379 per capita from its general fund. Oakland spends $1,773 per capita.
There are obviously many variables in city operations that make it nigh impossible to make an apples-for-apples comparison between the two cities. But even the above rough-order-of-magnitude estimates show that Oakland's inability to deliver the services and projects it promised to voters when new taxes were imposed on Oaklanders for those services and projects, is not a matter of scale.
The city of Oakland has the resources to do the job it promised -- Oaklanders pay plenty for that. Unlike Orinda (at least when it comes to potholes), Oakland appears to have a problem executing on the work and keeping its promises.
I’d love to see a breakdown of your general fund per capita figure - even a simple comparison of public safety and everything else between the two cities. Can you post that? Your comparison does seem to support my increased Oakland population density argument. That would be another good one. How do the population densities compare? Then we could look at traffic volumes, especially truck traffic. Does Orinda have a port?
Compare how much Orinda spends out of their general fund for roadway maintenance and how much Oakland spends. How does that comparison look over the past decade? Also, Oakland didn’t do any significant paving for decades. It wasn’t until 2017 with Measure KK that paving activity picked up. The Oakland / Orinda comparison makes no sense. The general fund to general fund makes no sense. Compare transportation spending over time. My in house crew could pave Orinda in 8 years.
@Josh R. -- Thank you for your comment. A few things:
1. If Orinda maintains 93 miles of roads, and Oakland 830 miles, then Oakland has around 9 times as many road miles to maintain as Orinda does.
2. Orinda's budgeted general fund expenditures for FY 2025-26 are approximately $26.7 million. By comparison, Oakland's budgeted general fund expenditures in FY 2025-26 are around $787.7 million -- 29.5 times higher than Orinda's. (And this doesn't even account for the massive expenditures in Oakland's special funds such as capital improvement funds, which also dwarf Orinda by comparison.)
3. Orinda (population 19,300) spends around $1,379 per capita from its general fund. Oakland spends $1,773 per capita.
There are obviously many variables in city operations that make it nigh impossible to make an apples-for-apples comparison between the two cities. But even the above rough-order-of-magnitude estimates show that Oakland's inability to deliver the services and projects it promised to voters when new taxes were imposed on Oaklanders for those services and projects, is not a matter of scale.
The city of Oakland has the resources to do the job it promised -- Oaklanders pay plenty for that. Unlike Orinda (at least when it comes to potholes), Oakland appears to have a problem executing on the work and keeping its promises.
I refuse to support any more taxes until we get some services. I’m so tired of coughing up more money every year when this city looks like a garbage dump and acts like it doesn’t owe us anything in return for our property taxes. Plus, the city council can always find a way to take that new tax money and use it for ‘emergencies’ instead of what it was voted in for. And they have done that repeatedly.
I was always a union supporter but I don’t like how they have intruded in our city politics and, in fact, achieved political power by essentially buying seats on the city council. Those seats, in turn, support taxes on us citizens that give the unions what they want. And give us citizens nothing.
More tax on working Oaklanders (parcel tax is a property tax but easier to sell to a gullible public) to pay for pensions in a city that is already one of the highest tax rates in the state but has the fewest vital services. This is not a MAGA vs. Progressive issue. This is just crazy.
Roland- Thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column. https://www.oaklandreport.org/t/letters
I sure hope Oakland taxpayers wise up.
I will be happy to pay a little more tax after they start fixing the potholes. 😊
Josh - Thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column. https://www.oaklandreport.org/t/letters
With respect to potholes, you may find these two facts interesting:
1) Oaklanders already have authorized the City of Oakland to increase taxes -- twice -- since 2016 to fix potholes and other road maintenance needs, by financing the issuance of a total $1.45 billion in infrastructure bonds, with $640 million dedicated to transportation projects including street repaving.
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oakland-cant-sell-infrastructure
2) Despite these 9-figure investments by Oakland taxpayers toward basic infrastructure like road repairs, Oakland's Pavement Condition Index (PCI) in 2023 was rated at 57 -- in the "At Risk" range. Meanwhile, neighboring Orinda’s PCI rating was a dismal 48 in 2012 -- in the “Poor” range -- but a decade later in 2023, Orinda’s PCI rating had improved to 84 -- in the “Good” range -- after that city's voters approved sales tax and property tax increases to fix Orinda’s public roads.
https://www.oaklandreport.org/i/180748397/orinda-leaves-oakland-in-the-dust-on-fixing-potholes
If Orinda can do it, why can’t Oakland? It can’t just be the difference in median income and tax revenue between the two cities. The City of Orinda’s operating budget is a fraction of Oakland’s. Orinda’s total operating expenditures in FY 2023-24 were a paltry $27.9 million compared to Oakland’s $1.66 billion.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated!
Thanks. If Orinda can do it we can too. Good challenge for Barbara Lee’s governance. Fixing roads are a strong signal that we have pride in our city.
Orinda maintains 93 miles. Oakland maintains 830 miles. I agree with the spirit of the comparison, but the magnitude of the task is not comparable. Oakland needs to pave a MINIMUM of 25 miles per year for 25 years. When finished, start all over again. It’s all time and money. More money means less time. Who will demand a minimum of “25 for 25”?
Josh R. -- Thank you for your comment. A few things:
1. If Orinda maintains 93 miles of roads, and Oakland 830 miles, then Oakland has around 9 times as many road miles to maintain as Orinda does.
2. Orinda's budgeted general fund expenditures for FY 2025-26 are approximately $26.7 million. By comparison, Oakland's budgeted general fund expenditures in FY 2025-26 are around $787.7 million -- 29.5 times higher than Orinda's. (And this doesn't even account for the massive expenditures in Oakland's special funds such as capital improvement funds, which also dwarf Orinda by comparison.)
3. Orinda (population 19,300) spends around $1,379 per capita from its general fund. Oakland spends $1,773 per capita.
There are obviously many variables in city operations that make it nigh impossible to make an apples-for-apples comparison between the two cities. But even the above rough-order-of-magnitude estimates show that Oakland's inability to deliver the services and projects it promised to voters when new taxes were imposed on Oaklanders for those services and projects, is not a matter of scale.
The city of Oakland has the resources to do the job it promised -- Oaklanders pay plenty for that. Unlike Orinda (at least when it comes to potholes), Oakland appears to have a problem executing on the work and keeping its promises.
I’d love to see a breakdown of your general fund per capita figure - even a simple comparison of public safety and everything else between the two cities. Can you post that? Your comparison does seem to support my increased Oakland population density argument. That would be another good one. How do the population densities compare? Then we could look at traffic volumes, especially truck traffic. Does Orinda have a port?
Compare how much Orinda spends out of their general fund for roadway maintenance and how much Oakland spends. How does that comparison look over the past decade? Also, Oakland didn’t do any significant paving for decades. It wasn’t until 2017 with Measure KK that paving activity picked up. The Oakland / Orinda comparison makes no sense. The general fund to general fund makes no sense. Compare transportation spending over time. My in house crew could pave Orinda in 8 years.
We've already paid for that multiple times.
@Josh R. -- Thank you for your comment. A few things:
1. If Orinda maintains 93 miles of roads, and Oakland 830 miles, then Oakland has around 9 times as many road miles to maintain as Orinda does.
2. Orinda's budgeted general fund expenditures for FY 2025-26 are approximately $26.7 million. By comparison, Oakland's budgeted general fund expenditures in FY 2025-26 are around $787.7 million -- 29.5 times higher than Orinda's. (And this doesn't even account for the massive expenditures in Oakland's special funds such as capital improvement funds, which also dwarf Orinda by comparison.)
3. Orinda (population 19,300) spends around $1,379 per capita from its general fund. Oakland spends $1,773 per capita.
There are obviously many variables in city operations that make it nigh impossible to make an apples-for-apples comparison between the two cities. But even the above rough-order-of-magnitude estimates show that Oakland's inability to deliver the services and projects it promised to voters when new taxes were imposed on Oaklanders for those services and projects, is not a matter of scale.
The city of Oakland has the resources to do the job it promised -- Oaklanders pay plenty for that. Unlike Orinda (at least when it comes to potholes), Oakland appears to have a problem executing on the work and keeping its promises.
I refuse to support any more taxes until we get some services. I’m so tired of coughing up more money every year when this city looks like a garbage dump and acts like it doesn’t owe us anything in return for our property taxes. Plus, the city council can always find a way to take that new tax money and use it for ‘emergencies’ instead of what it was voted in for. And they have done that repeatedly.
I was always a union supporter but I don’t like how they have intruded in our city politics and, in fact, achieved political power by essentially buying seats on the city council. Those seats, in turn, support taxes on us citizens that give the unions what they want. And give us citizens nothing.