Since 2013, Oakland grew employee compensation by $411M. That’s $184M more than needed to keep pace with inflation. It far exceeds raises of other California cities, and precipitated a budget crisis.
This Mayor and City Council are beholden to the city unions so much so that they cannot even discuss keeping pay the same let alone decreases. And it is because the unions come out in force for budget discussions.
This is exactly why public employee unions should never be allowed. The “bargaining” is completely asymmetric — the city has no alternative but to agree to union demands. An overly aggressive private sector union can put some or all of its employers out of business, but the city cannot go out of business. It can, however, become a giant incinerator for tax revenues as well as a total and complete failure in its responsibilities to its citizenry, as Oakland has done.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Frank, but of the 535 highest compensated folks in Oakland, all with total compensation over $350K in 2023, 509 are either in Police or Fire, and the inflated compensation is mainly due to overtime.
I also worked for the City for 20+ years in a non-public safety job, never making more than $95K in salary, and earning ZERO overtime. I am now retired, but must add, regarding the Q of public unions, that I was also somewhat ambivalent about public unions. However, importantly, the greatest value of my union was at budget time, when they fought for non-sworn employees to get a fair shake vs. public safety employees. Police and fire are more than 50% of the city's budget, with overtime being a huge inflationary factor.
So, looking at the referenced section of your report, it looks like you are saying that Oakland's high costs are due mainly to lifetime pension costs and higher employee wages compared to several other cities. I'm perplexed by the latter, since before I retired in 2019, my union cited a Bay Area wide study that stated that Oakland's non-public safety wages were significantly LOWER than other comparable cities.
Also, your comparison with other Bay Area cities conspicuously excludes SF and San Jose. My sense is that bigger cities in particular tend to have more generous pension formulas; my analysis of this is that big cities have more contested and more expensive elections, with union endorsements and election volunteers of greater value. In return, politicians seem more likely to bestow better wages and benefits. In the go go 1990's, in particular, Oakland and SF both did this, but Oakland did not have the economic means that SF had to afford these commitments. This means that Oakland's higher pension costs hurt Oakland more than they hurt SF.
I also notice that Oakland is the only city on your "comparable city" list that is in the Bay Area, where rents and cost of living are significantly higher than places like Sacramento, Stockton, Long Beach, and Bakersfield. Having higher costs of living requires cities to pay higher wages, especially to be somewhat competitive with the high wage private sector in the Bay Area.
Finally, for now, I'm perplexed by your assertion that Police and Fire wages and OT are only a minor factor in Oakland's situation. A different way of analyzing this is to ask your team to break out the magnitude of police and fire wages, benefits, and pension liabilities vs. non-public safety personnel. Unless you dispute that public safety costs are more than 50% of Oakland's budget -- and often those of any city -- I don't see how non-public safety costs (including pensions) can be an outsized part of the problem. This seems particularly likely since police and fire wages are higher and retirement eligibility is earlier, with a more generous overall pension formula compared to non-public safety employees.
Well, for one thing isn't this just a consequence of everybody looking out for number one ,it's a dog eat dog world, there's no such thing as the public good or serving the community, it's all about money free market capitalist neoliberal hellworld ? Why shouldn't city employees feel that way too ? But, yep, this seems like a big problem. Who knew Oakland city workers did better than in SF where the city government seems like it has trouble finding enough ways to burn through money while unable to deal with homelessness? This does make me curious about some other facts, like how much are actual salaries of some Oakland employees, especially cops and firemen, since I presume they are a lot of the budget. Also it would be great to see a breakdown (and an analysis even?) of the whole city budget. Also it would be great to compare and contrast other local city budgets and also budgets of a bunch of similar sized cities in the US. Also how much did city unions give to candidates compared to corporate donors actually? Thanks for your substack too !
FranklinRooseveltcopyrightExpWFranklin Delano Roosevelt, like the overwhelming majority of Americans today, opposed public sector unions.
See below the full text of FDR’s letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937.
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades “has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships.” Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours,
[To] Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, 10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
I've been a proud union member my entire adult life. A Teamster, Newspaper Guild, AFTRA, CTA. If anyone thinks monopoly capitalism is restricted to "Piedmont and San Francisco billionaires," they're simply not thinking. This November may the last best time to stop the madness destroying our town. A whole new City Council majority, a new City Attorney, as well as a new mayor.
So breathtakingly irresponsible. Just give me 1200 officers and a full fire department, and fix a few potholes. Everything (and everybody!) else can get "defunded", since they seem to like that concept so much. Ideologues with sinecures - a recipe for chaos.
Sorry to burst your bubble, J, but of the 535 highest compensated folks in Oakland, all with total compensation over $350K in 2023, 509 are either in Police or Fire, and the inflated compensation is mainly due to overtime. You suggest "defunding" most of the other 5100 employees, but the rank and file that aren't in public safety jobs deliver real services, and have NOT had steeply rising salaries highlighted in the "Oakland Report".
I know this because I scrolled through the first 11 pages of the Transparency report. The 26 non public safety employees in the top 535 are mostly department heads with higher salaries and almost no overtime, with a few city attorneys and civil engineers who check building plans who have slightly lower salaries and significant overtime.
I also worked for the City for 20+ years in a non-public safety job, never making more than $95K in salary, and earning ZERO overtime. I am now retired, but must add, regarding the Q of public unions, that I was also somewhat ambivalent about public unions. However, importantly, the greatest value of my union was at budget time, when they fought for non-sworn employees to get a fair shake vs. public safety employees. Police and fire are more than 50% of the city's budget, with overtime being a huge inflationary factor.
No bubbles burst here. Multiple things can be true at the same time. I'm sure you worked diligently and were't paid lavishly.
The overtime numbers are real, but as far as I'm aware, are a result of underfunded staff - ie if something critical happens and you don't have adequate staff, you're forced to pay overtime. Is the system gamed to some degree? Sure. Is it the largest source of waste/fraud/etc. in Oakland? Not in the top 20.
If you think Oakland is a well-run city, or had effective resource allocation, then I'm not sure what to tell you that would change your mind. I might just tell you to travel a bit around the US and marvel at how much better most every city is by comparison in terms of governance, crime, and delivering basic services.
Leila, it's not because the public employee "unions come out in force for the budget discussions." They don't have to even show up, because all of the Council members and Mayor and City Attorney were elected with huge campaign contributions (Independent Expenditure Committees) funded by the same unions. So whenever the public unions have to sit down with 'the City' to negotiate anything, they are sitting on both sides of the table. So the only issue is 'How much can we give ourselves before either we bankrupt the City or we all go to jail?' Obviously they miscalculated.
If businesses contracting with the City cannot make large contributions to elect candidates who will negotiate their future contracts, the public unions in the same situation cannot be allowed to do that either. If CWS can’t do it, SEIU 1021 shouldn’t be allowed either.
Doesnt Dan Kalb realize that being as safe a city as possible is one way to stay competitive with other cities? In fact, safer cities will attract more residents and businesses, thereby increasing the tax base.
Sorry to inform you, but no Dan doesn't care or think along those lines. All the Oakland politicians are elected by people with the same idealistic, out of touch, progressive mentality that is not market or capitalist driven. The only revenue they understand is TAX "revenue". To change Oakland for the better, a majority of the voters would need to be replaced with people who think differently. Unfortunately, a responsible person like that will never move to Oakland. It's a death spiral.
The defining characteristic of the Regressives [1] is that, regardless of the volume of evidence that their policies are destructive, they continue to believe that the solution is even more of those policies.
[1]. I refuse to call them progressives for the obvious reason that most of their policies lead to the opposite of progress.
100% this. How none of these people realize that unsafe cities drive away businesses and families is beyond me. Classic doom loop - no commerce, no people, no tax base -> no city. Safety first. How many businesses (and lives) do we have to lose?
I have to laugh. It's soooo obvious, but lets pretend. 100% true that the mayor and supervisors are owned by the PUBLIC unions - they fund their elections. When a police sergeant takes home $879,000 a year in a job that that should pay $100,000 max, you know the problem. This was obviously the fault of Reagan and Prop 13. 😂😂
-its quite an eye opener when you have to click thru the list (listed in order of highest to lowest earner) for many pages till you even reach folks making "down in the" in the $300K range-quite extraordinary.
The most striking takeaway for me is the amount of people making well over $600K!
Yes. I have read that because of the inability to fully staff positions, that a few people end up getting overtime, etc. I am sympathetic to that point of view. I think if there were 1,000 or 1,200 officers (dare to dream!) you'd see a dramatic decrease in O/T and overall compensation numbers. Someone gets shot at 2am, skeleton crew on duty, you need someone - you pay overtime for it. Just another way that poor cities get more impoverished.
Laff away. Or add up the property tax increments (euphemistically "parcel" tax) since then just here in Oakland, perhaps consider something a little less cartoonish, worn thin, and obviously irrelevant than Reagan and Prop.
Laughter is the best medicine. To still hear libs blame lack of $ on Reagan and Prop 13 adds to the humor. The graft has been going on for decades. Kinda wished I'd gotten a government job and pension.
The public employees unions have an outsized role in selecting City Council members. The pay and benefits are the payback for the union support. A well known fact, but what can be done about it?
Another area where the city is shooting itself in the foot is housing. Talking to folks trying to remodel or build new housing face months of waiting for inspectors to come to approve step 1 so they can move on to step 2. Repeat, repeat. Do we not have enough inspectors?
Do not disagree especially when it comes to police and fire (which I was not referring to). Would love to consider an alternative to union negotiations that benefit not only Oakland citizens but employees as well. My experience is that in general (major generalization coming....) unions would rather lose positions (i.e. members) as long as the remaining positions (i.e. members) get a pay increase and are happy. At some point, Oakland is going to have rehab the departments, services and reduce the 5000+ employees that it has.
There is a loophole in Measure Z that allows the City to ignore the minimum staffing requirements if they declare an unanticipated financial event. The budget crisis has been anticipated since 2021, but that doesn't matter. The council declared it anyway.
This Mayor and City Council are beholden to the city unions so much so that they cannot even discuss keeping pay the same let alone decreases. And it is because the unions come out in force for budget discussions.
This is exactly why public employee unions should never be allowed. The “bargaining” is completely asymmetric — the city has no alternative but to agree to union demands. An overly aggressive private sector union can put some or all of its employers out of business, but the city cannot go out of business. It can, however, become a giant incinerator for tax revenues as well as a total and complete failure in its responsibilities to its citizenry, as Oakland has done.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Frank, but of the 535 highest compensated folks in Oakland, all with total compensation over $350K in 2023, 509 are either in Police or Fire, and the inflated compensation is mainly due to overtime.
I also worked for the City for 20+ years in a non-public safety job, never making more than $95K in salary, and earning ZERO overtime. I am now retired, but must add, regarding the Q of public unions, that I was also somewhat ambivalent about public unions. However, importantly, the greatest value of my union was at budget time, when they fought for non-sworn employees to get a fair shake vs. public safety employees. Police and fire are more than 50% of the city's budget, with overtime being a huge inflationary factor.
We addressed your OT hypothesis. Indeed it rose 50% over 10 years. But that only accounted for 7% of the compensation growth. Details:
https://open.substack.com/pub/oaklandreport/p/oakland-paid-450m-in-one-year-for?selection=13a09d45-ced9-4b36-8639-e647ca006289&r=wk9kr&utm_medium=ios
So, looking at the referenced section of your report, it looks like you are saying that Oakland's high costs are due mainly to lifetime pension costs and higher employee wages compared to several other cities. I'm perplexed by the latter, since before I retired in 2019, my union cited a Bay Area wide study that stated that Oakland's non-public safety wages were significantly LOWER than other comparable cities.
Also, your comparison with other Bay Area cities conspicuously excludes SF and San Jose. My sense is that bigger cities in particular tend to have more generous pension formulas; my analysis of this is that big cities have more contested and more expensive elections, with union endorsements and election volunteers of greater value. In return, politicians seem more likely to bestow better wages and benefits. In the go go 1990's, in particular, Oakland and SF both did this, but Oakland did not have the economic means that SF had to afford these commitments. This means that Oakland's higher pension costs hurt Oakland more than they hurt SF.
I also notice that Oakland is the only city on your "comparable city" list that is in the Bay Area, where rents and cost of living are significantly higher than places like Sacramento, Stockton, Long Beach, and Bakersfield. Having higher costs of living requires cities to pay higher wages, especially to be somewhat competitive with the high wage private sector in the Bay Area.
Finally, for now, I'm perplexed by your assertion that Police and Fire wages and OT are only a minor factor in Oakland's situation. A different way of analyzing this is to ask your team to break out the magnitude of police and fire wages, benefits, and pension liabilities vs. non-public safety personnel. Unless you dispute that public safety costs are more than 50% of Oakland's budget -- and often those of any city -- I don't see how non-public safety costs (including pensions) can be an outsized part of the problem. This seems particularly likely since police and fire wages are higher and retirement eligibility is earlier, with a more generous overall pension formula compared to non-public safety employees.
Well, for one thing isn't this just a consequence of everybody looking out for number one ,it's a dog eat dog world, there's no such thing as the public good or serving the community, it's all about money free market capitalist neoliberal hellworld ? Why shouldn't city employees feel that way too ? But, yep, this seems like a big problem. Who knew Oakland city workers did better than in SF where the city government seems like it has trouble finding enough ways to burn through money while unable to deal with homelessness? This does make me curious about some other facts, like how much are actual salaries of some Oakland employees, especially cops and firemen, since I presume they are a lot of the budget. Also it would be great to see a breakdown (and an analysis even?) of the whole city budget. Also it would be great to compare and contrast other local city budgets and also budgets of a bunch of similar sized cities in the US. Also how much did city unions give to candidates compared to corporate donors actually? Thanks for your substack too !
FDR warned in a famous letter:
FranklinRooseveltcopyrightExpWFranklin Delano Roosevelt, like the overwhelming majority of Americans today, opposed public sector unions.
See below the full text of FDR’s letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937.
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades “has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships.” Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours,
[To] Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, 10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
I've been a proud union member my entire adult life. A Teamster, Newspaper Guild, AFTRA, CTA. If anyone thinks monopoly capitalism is restricted to "Piedmont and San Francisco billionaires," they're simply not thinking. This November may the last best time to stop the madness destroying our town. A whole new City Council majority, a new City Attorney, as well as a new mayor.
and a new Alameda County DA
Excellent summary. How to circulate to a broader audience ???
So breathtakingly irresponsible. Just give me 1200 officers and a full fire department, and fix a few potholes. Everything (and everybody!) else can get "defunded", since they seem to like that concept so much. Ideologues with sinecures - a recipe for chaos.
Sorry to burst your bubble, J, but of the 535 highest compensated folks in Oakland, all with total compensation over $350K in 2023, 509 are either in Police or Fire, and the inflated compensation is mainly due to overtime. You suggest "defunding" most of the other 5100 employees, but the rank and file that aren't in public safety jobs deliver real services, and have NOT had steeply rising salaries highlighted in the "Oakland Report".
I know this because I scrolled through the first 11 pages of the Transparency report. The 26 non public safety employees in the top 535 are mostly department heads with higher salaries and almost no overtime, with a few city attorneys and civil engineers who check building plans who have slightly lower salaries and significant overtime.
I also worked for the City for 20+ years in a non-public safety job, never making more than $95K in salary, and earning ZERO overtime. I am now retired, but must add, regarding the Q of public unions, that I was also somewhat ambivalent about public unions. However, importantly, the greatest value of my union was at budget time, when they fought for non-sworn employees to get a fair shake vs. public safety employees. Police and fire are more than 50% of the city's budget, with overtime being a huge inflationary factor.
Hi Steve,
No bubbles burst here. Multiple things can be true at the same time. I'm sure you worked diligently and were't paid lavishly.
The overtime numbers are real, but as far as I'm aware, are a result of underfunded staff - ie if something critical happens and you don't have adequate staff, you're forced to pay overtime. Is the system gamed to some degree? Sure. Is it the largest source of waste/fraud/etc. in Oakland? Not in the top 20.
If you think Oakland is a well-run city, or had effective resource allocation, then I'm not sure what to tell you that would change your mind. I might just tell you to travel a bit around the US and marvel at how much better most every city is by comparison in terms of governance, crime, and delivering basic services.
Leadership with an agenda but without ethics or integrity.
Leila, it's not because the public employee "unions come out in force for the budget discussions." They don't have to even show up, because all of the Council members and Mayor and City Attorney were elected with huge campaign contributions (Independent Expenditure Committees) funded by the same unions. So whenever the public unions have to sit down with 'the City' to negotiate anything, they are sitting on both sides of the table. So the only issue is 'How much can we give ourselves before either we bankrupt the City or we all go to jail?' Obviously they miscalculated.
100%.
Public unions should not exist exactly for the reasons you mention. But, they do exist and they will continue.
Private unions are needed.
If businesses contracting with the City cannot make large contributions to elect candidates who will negotiate their future contracts, the public unions in the same situation cannot be allowed to do that either. If CWS can’t do it, SEIU 1021 shouldn’t be allowed either.
Doesnt Dan Kalb realize that being as safe a city as possible is one way to stay competitive with other cities? In fact, safer cities will attract more residents and businesses, thereby increasing the tax base.
Sorry to inform you, but no Dan doesn't care or think along those lines. All the Oakland politicians are elected by people with the same idealistic, out of touch, progressive mentality that is not market or capitalist driven. The only revenue they understand is TAX "revenue". To change Oakland for the better, a majority of the voters would need to be replaced with people who think differently. Unfortunately, a responsible person like that will never move to Oakland. It's a death spiral.
The defining characteristic of the Regressives [1] is that, regardless of the volume of evidence that their policies are destructive, they continue to believe that the solution is even more of those policies.
[1]. I refuse to call them progressives for the obvious reason that most of their policies lead to the opposite of progress.
100% this. How none of these people realize that unsafe cities drive away businesses and families is beyond me. Classic doom loop - no commerce, no people, no tax base -> no city. Safety first. How many businesses (and lives) do we have to lose?
I have to laugh. It's soooo obvious, but lets pretend. 100% true that the mayor and supervisors are owned by the PUBLIC unions - they fund their elections. When a police sergeant takes home $879,000 a year in a job that that should pay $100,000 max, you know the problem. This was obviously the fault of Reagan and Prop 13. 😂😂
https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2023/oakland/
Thanks for posting the link https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2023/oakland/
Well worth a look
-its quite an eye opener when you have to click thru the list (listed in order of highest to lowest earner) for many pages till you even reach folks making "down in the" in the $300K range-quite extraordinary.
The most striking takeaway for me is the amount of people making well over $600K!
Yes. I have read that because of the inability to fully staff positions, that a few people end up getting overtime, etc. I am sympathetic to that point of view. I think if there were 1,000 or 1,200 officers (dare to dream!) you'd see a dramatic decrease in O/T and overall compensation numbers. Someone gets shot at 2am, skeleton crew on duty, you need someone - you pay overtime for it. Just another way that poor cities get more impoverished.
As pointed out in the article as well as in this link, the benefit costs are astounding. The Mayor's total comp, $215K. Benefits another $103K.
Laff away. Or add up the property tax increments (euphemistically "parcel" tax) since then just here in Oakland, perhaps consider something a little less cartoonish, worn thin, and obviously irrelevant than Reagan and Prop.
13 - bad as they were - and READ THE DATA.
Laughter is the best medicine. To still hear libs blame lack of $ on Reagan and Prop 13 adds to the humor. The graft has been going on for decades. Kinda wished I'd gotten a government job and pension.
The public employees unions have an outsized role in selecting City Council members. The pay and benefits are the payback for the union support. A well known fact, but what can be done about it?
Thank you for your work.
Another area where the city is shooting itself in the foot is housing. Talking to folks trying to remodel or build new housing face months of waiting for inspectors to come to approve step 1 so they can move on to step 2. Repeat, repeat. Do we not have enough inspectors?
Do not disagree especially when it comes to police and fire (which I was not referring to). Would love to consider an alternative to union negotiations that benefit not only Oakland citizens but employees as well. My experience is that in general (major generalization coming....) unions would rather lose positions (i.e. members) as long as the remaining positions (i.e. members) get a pay increase and are happy. At some point, Oakland is going to have rehab the departments, services and reduce the 5000+ employees that it has.
When will the Oakland electorate wake up and vote for competent candidates with reasonable, responsible ideas? It’s just about too late.
If police is cut what happens to the collection of taxes for violence prevention measure Z?
There is a loophole in Measure Z that allows the City to ignore the minimum staffing requirements if they declare an unanticipated financial event. The budget crisis has been anticipated since 2021, but that doesn't matter. The council declared it anyway.
https://x.com/oaklandreportca/status/1805848621147210042