BY ROD JACOMET
A government of city employees, by city employees, for city employees
Oakland has 24 city departments and thousands of employees.1 Residents may ask the question: what do they actually do for us?
The answer, increasingly, is that they extract. While neighbors navigate an obstacle course of permits, fines, and fees, the city’s own finances spiral toward projected annual deficits of $115 to $130 million through 20302 — not despite all this activity, but alongside it. Oakland has mastered the art of appearing busy while delivering nothing.
Our democracy is often defined as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Oakland has achieved something different: a government of city employees, by city employees, for city employees. The resident — the customer, the taxpayer, the person paying for all of it — is an afterthought at best, and a revenue source at worst.
Subscribe to Oakland Report (it’s free).
The “permit trap” ensnares homeowners, renters, businesses and builders alike
In most functional cities, simple residential permits — and even the plan checks behind them — are issued over the counter, the same day. A qualified plan checker reviews your drawings, asks questions, marks up any issues, and either approves the project or hands you a redline sheet before you leave the building. You walk in with plans; you walk out with a permit or a clear list of what to fix.
For straightforward residential work — an addition, a remodel, an in-law unit (ADU) — this is standard practice in well-run jurisdictions. This level of service was once available in Oakland itself. But now no longer for many projects.
Oakland has expanded its same-day permit program — issuing over 8,000 such permits last year, with plans to add bathroom renovations and window replacement.3 That is genuine progress. But the program still covers painting, HVAC, solar, and trade work — not the projects that define whether one can actually improve their property. A kitchen or bathroom remodel that requires opening up walls, a home addition, a foundation repair, a seismic retrofit — all require full plan review with no guaranteed response time and no counter service.
The resident waits. The department does not.
Oakland’s own published turnaround estimates: new home plan checks, 80 days. Additions and alterations, 21 days. Simple kitchen or bathroom remodels with no wall changes, 3 days to 2 weeks. Planning approvals for anything more complex, often 6 to 8 months. These are targets, not guarantees, and they assume a complete, error-free application submitted to a department that has no enforceable deadline to respond.
The cost of this delay is real and largely invisible. Every month a project sits in queue is a month of carrying costs on unpermitted work, a contractor’s schedule in limbo, a family living in a construction zone. For small landlords trying to bring a unit up to code, the process is so punishing that many give up — leaving in place the very conditions the city claims to be correcting.
Then comes the enforcement. The same department that takes 80 days to approve a permit sets compliance deadlines that can be challenging for homeowners to meet — in some cases physically impossible without the permit the department hasn’t issued.4
The Alameda County Grand Jury in 2011 found Oakland’s inspectors created an “atmosphere of hostility and intimidation” toward property owners.5 One resident was fined $18,000 for debris that turned out to be children’s toys.6 The records system tracking violations is outdated and cannot efficiently process appeals as other cities do, in my experience. The city responded by reorganizing the department, and the appeals process was litigated in court.7 While that was some years ago, little has changed since then, in my experience.
Under Oakland’s municipal code, each day a violation goes unabated is a new and separate offense.8 Citations compound into thousands of dollars, with no obligation on the city to process the permit that would allow the property owner to comply. The customer is not a priority. But the revenue is.
Share this article with someone you know.
The lead paint mandate: a wave of costs coming for every neighborhood
Now consider what is coming. Oakland has adopted an ordinance declaring that any building built before January 1, 1978, is presumed to contain lead-based paint.9 According to U.S. Census housing data, three-quarters of Oakland’s housing stock was built before 198010 — meaning the vast majority of the city’s buildings fall under this presumption.
Under the ordinance, hiring anyone to disturb paint on such a building requires a permit, a state or EPA-certified contractor, and an approved lead hazard work plan — along with the requisite fees. Refusing or neglecting to remove known lead hazards when ordered is a misdemeanor under Oakland Municipal Code §15.08.560.
For owner-occupants, this is burdensome. For rental property owners, it is far worse. They cannot perform the work themselves. The ordinance requires state or EPA-certified contractors to perform the work at market rates, along with an approved work plan, mandatory permits, pre-work inspections, and final inspections. If tenants must be displaced during the work, a relocation plan is required. The city may recover all costs of abatement and prosecution from the property owner.
This is not a modest safety measure targeting documented hazards. It is a presumption applied wholesale to thousands of buildings, generating fees, inspections, certified-contractor billings, and city cost recovery revenue — all in the name of public health. The cause is real, and noble. The revenue extraction is equally real.
The garbage tax — and the mess it leaves behind
There are other ways the city burdens residents and businesses with excessive costs. Take for example waste removal. Oakland’s residential waste pickup rates are among the highest in the Bay Area — $113.53 per month for a 64-gallon cart, compared to $93.60 in Berkeley and $72.15 in San Leandro.111213
The predictable result is visible on every major corridor: illegal dumping. When the cost of legal disposal is punishing enough, residents and haulers make the rational calculation to avoid it.
The city responds with cleanup crews and fines — more extraction — rather than addressing the pricing structure that created the incentive in the first place. Oakland has effectively taxed its way into a blight problem, then monetized the blight.
The cannabis double standard
Some of us may remember, back when cannabis was first legalized and regulated, the projected windfall of new revenue the city said it would receive from the newly legal industry, which it would then invest into programs and services for its citizenry.
The reality has not fulfilled those lofty dreams.
In March 2025, California Highway Patrol and the state Department of Cannabis Control raided a West Oakland warehouse and seized 25,276 illegally cultivated cannabis plants valued at nearly $21 million — along with firearms and illegal pesticides.14 Oakland city enforcement was not substantively involved. The state had to do it.
Licensed cannabis businesses in Oakland pay a gross receipts tax ranging up to 5%, submit to state testing, carry insurance, and operate transparently.15 Their unlicensed competitors pay none of those costs, and by all appearances, the city’s enforcement has done little to discourage illegal operators from skirting the law and avoiding the taxes and fees promised to benefit Oaklanders.
The unlicensed market is estimated to account for about 60 percent of all cannabis sales in California, by the state’s own estimate — leaving licensed operators to compete for less than half the market they were promised.16 Oakland’s cannabis tax revenues have underperformed projections as taxable cannabis sales fell from a roughly $271 million peak to about $186 million.17
The city built its cannabis licensing program on a promise: regulate the market, collect the taxes, reinvest in the community. It delivered a system that burdens the compliant and ignores the non-compliant — destroying the incentive to be legal in the first place.
Urban campers and the two-tier city
The arguably most visible sign of Oakland’s upside-down approach to enforcement is its widespread encampments.
While property owners face compounding fines for code violations and rental owners face misdemeanor charges for failing to comply with abatement orders, urban campers occupy parks, sidewalks, and public spaces across Oakland with little to no consequence.
The results are measurable. For example, according to national crime data, Oakland ranks #1 in the nation in property crime among major reporting cities and has the highest violent crime rate in California.18
While not every property crime is committed by encampment dwellers, it stands to reason that long-standing unchecked misery, poverty and lawlessness on this scale is a contributing factor to Oakland’s high crime rate.
Another example: Businesses that had long invested in Oakland, such as In-N-Out, Denny’s, and other business operators along the Hegenberger corridor, have cited deteriorating safety conditions as reasons for leaving.1920 Kaiser Permanente moved about 1,200 jobs to Pleasanton, .citing hybrid work shifts; months later it issued a ‘stay inside’ advisory to its downtown employees, citing safety concerns.2122
A Bay Area Council Economic Institute survey found in June 2025 that six in ten East Bay respondents say they now visit downtown Oakland less, over half of them citing crime and public safety as a reason.23
A report by the same institute found a 14% decline in businesses filing taxes in Oakland between fiscal years 2021–22 and 2023–24; and that its sales tax revenue should be $15–16 million higher when tracking for inflation.24
Oakland’s approach to encampments is not compassion, as the term is commonly understood. It is abandonment — of the campers themselves, who receive no services or path forward, and of the taxpaying residents and businesses who are asked to pay more to fund a city that no longer functions for them.
A revenue crisis of the city’s own making
Here we turn to the city’s own financial practices. Oakland’s finance department projects that the city is facing structural budget deficits of $115 to $130 million annually through 2030. Despite this, Oakland voters rejected Measure E — a $192 parcel tax — in June 2026.25 The Coliseum sale has been delayed repeatedly and undergone multiple reconfigurations, including a “seller financing” loan for the stadium parcel.2627 Business tax revenue is declining as employers leave for greener pastures.
The city’s response to these warning signs has been to further intensify its revenue extraction from the people and businesses who remain — through more (selective) enforcement, higher fees, compounding fines, and new mandates with criminal penalties attached.
Meanwhile, the city offers little transparency about how those revenues are spent, no measurable outcomes tied to department budgets, and no accountability when departments miss their own published timelines.
Twenty-four departments. A $130 million annual deficit for years to come. Permit counters that take six months for applications other cities process promptly. Inspectors who fine residents for children’s toys. A misdemeanor charge for defying an abatement order on old buildings, unless the owner pays to test and disprove the presumption. Garbage rates that run the highest of any neighboring city. A $21 million cannabis warehouse the city never touched until the state stepped in. Public spaces where residents and business operators no longer feel safe.
Oakland doesn’t have a resource problem. It has a priority problem — and a governing philosophy that punishes the people building this city while looking the other way at those dismantling it.
— Rod Jacomet, licensed contractor and Oakland resident
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rod Jacomet is a California-licensed general contractor and International Code Council (ICC)-certified dwelling inspector with experience across the private, public, and nonprofit sectors in California. His educational background is in social anthropology and business administration. Over the course of his career, he has worked with multiple state and federal agencies in varying capacities, giving him a broad perspective on how municipal systems are designed to function — and where they break down. Jacomet has held roles at California municipal Building and Housing agencies, served as chair of the Emeryville housing commission, and served as president of the Women’s Daytime Drop-in Center in Berkeley. Earlier this year, he sought to run for Mayor of Oakland but ultimately did not qualify for the ballot. He lives and works in Oakland.
The views expressed in our Commentaries do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing writers.
City of Oakland. “Departments.” City of Oakland webpage, accessed Oct. 25, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/Government/Departments
Johnson, Bradley et al. “Annual comprehensive financial report for the year ended June 30, 2025.” City of Oakland, Dec. 30, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/finance/documents/financial-reporting/annual-comprehensive-financial-reports/2025-city-of-oakland-acfr_final-123025.pdf
City of Oakland. “Rapid ‘same-day’ permits.” City of Oakland webpage, accessed Oct. 25, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/Planning-Building/Building-Construction-Permits-Inspections/Building-Permits/Rapid-Same-Day-Permits. (Note: the city says the program is expanding — 8,000+ same-day permits were issued last year vs. zero in 2022; online issuance is reportedly averaging about 18 minutes; the city reports that 88% of trade-permit applications were issued same day in fiscal year 2024; and the city says it plans to add bathroom renovations and window replacement.)
City of Oakland. “Code enforcement services.” City of Oakland webpage, accessed Oct. 25, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/Planning-Building/Code-Enforcement-Services (Note: Compliance deadlines are set per notice — e.g., 21 days on a Courtesy Notice, 10 days on a Repeat Violation — plus five mailing days; extensions are available on request.)
Alameda County Civil Grand Jury contributors. “2010–2011 Final Report.” Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Jun. 27, 2011. https://grandjury.acgov.org/reports/.
See also: Cruz-Rosas, Monica. “CEDA officials respond to grand jury findings, promise improvements.” Oakland North, Sept. 14, 2011. https://oaklandnorth.net/2011/09/14/ceda-officials-respond-to-grand-jury-findings-promise-improvements/
Johnson, Chip. “Grand jury appalled at Oakland building inspectors.” SFGate, Jun. 28, 2011. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. Lippman v. City of Oakland, No. A141865, Dec. 22, 2017. https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A141865.PDF
City of Oakland contributors. “Oakland Municipal Code, Chapter 1.08 — Civil penalties —Section 1.08.040(D).” https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT1GEPR_CH1.08CIPE
City of Oakland. “Oakland Municipal Code, Chapter 15.08 — Building maintenance code — Article XIII (Lead hazard control and abatement), §§ 15.08.510–15.08.580.” https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_CH15.08OABUMACO.
See also: City of Oakland. “Lead-based paint permits.” City of Oakland webpage, accessed Oct. 25, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/My-Household/Building-and-Remodeling/Homeowner-Projects-Permits/Lead-Based-Paint-Permits
U.S. Census Bureau. “Year structure built, Table B25034, American Community Survey 2020–2024 5-year estimates — Oakland city, California.” U.S. Census Bureau. https://api.census.gov/data/2024/acs/acs5?get=group(B25034)&ucgid=1600000US0653000
City of Oakland. “Monthly collection service rates for single family dwellings, July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027.” Oakland Recycles webpage, Jun. 1, 2026. https://www.oaklandrecycles.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Oakland-Rates-SFD-July-2026.pdf
City of Berkeley. “Residential waste services.” City of Berkeley webpage, accessed Oct. 25, 2026. https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/trash-recycling/residential-waste-services
City of San Leandro and Alameda County Industries. “Single-family service / rates.” San Leandro Recycles webpage, accessed Oct. 25, 2026. https://sanleandrorecycles.com/singlefamily/
California Department of Cannabis Control. “Joint efforts by California Highway Patrol and Department of Cannabis Control result in seizure of over $20M in illicit cannabis.” CDCC, Jun. 15, 2025. https://www.cannabis.ca.gov/posts/joint-efforts-by-california-highway-patrol-and-department-of-cannabis-control-result-in-seizure-of-over-20m-in-illicit-cannabis
City of Oakland. “2026 Cannabis Business Tax Renewal Notice.” City of Oakland Finance Department, Dec. 10, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/2/finance/documents/business/cannabis/2026_cannabis_business_tax_renewal.pdf
Powers, Jacob. “Oakland dispensaries are struggling to make ends meet.” The Bold Italic, Oct. 1, 2019. https://www.thebolditalic.com/oakland-dispensaries-are-struggling-to-make-ends-meet/
Jackson, Sherry. “Cannabis Regulatory Commission report.” City of Oakland, Sept. 23, 2024. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/city-administrator/documents/permits/cannabis/rmb-crc-report-september-2024-updated-9.30.2024_2025-01-10-232511_dvys.pdf
Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland still has the #1 property crime rate in America.” Oakland Report, Aug. 15, 2026. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oakland-still-highest-property-crime-rate-america
Bay Area Council Economic Institute . “Report on public safety and Oakland’s economy.” BACEI, June 2025. https://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/BACEI_OaklandPublicSafety_June2025_FINAL.pdf
Lin, Da. “Citing crime, In-N-Out announces closure of Oakland restaurant.” CBS News Bay Area, Jan. 23, 2024. https://cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/citing-crime-in-n-out-announces-closure-oakland-restaurant/
Fabian, Jose. “Denny’s announces closure of Oakland location in Hegenberger corridor.” CBS News, Mar. 11, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/dennys-announces-closure-of-oakland-location-in-hegenberger-corridor
Ravani, Sarah. “Kaiser Permanente to move 1,200 office jobs out of Oakland headquarters.” San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 22, 2023. https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/kaiser-permanente-move-1-200-jobs-oakland-17799251.php; https://archive.is/q6nXV
Estacio, Terisa. “Oakland Kaiser Permanente advises workers to stay inside.” KRON4, Jan. 26, 2024. https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/oakland-kaiser-permanente-advises-workers-to-stay-inside/
Op. cit. Bay Area Council Economic Institute. “Report on public safety and Oakland's economy.”
Talerico, Kate. “Voters reject Oakland’s Measure E parcel tax to pay for city services.” San Francisco Chronicle, Jun. 8, 2026. https://www.sfchronicle.com/election/article/oakland-measure-e-parcel-tax-22282800.php; https://archive.ph/NWYeN
ABC7 News contributors. “Oakland delays sale of Coliseum site with African American Sports and Entertainment Group to 2026.” ABC7 News, Apr. 16, 2025. https://abc7news.com/post/oakland-delays-sale-coliseum-site-african-american-sports-entertainment-group-2026/16186086/
City of Oakland contributors. “Oakland Coliseum redevelopment project.” City of Oakland webpage, accessed Oct. 25, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/Government/Departments/City-Administrator/Oakland-Coliseum-Redevelopment-Project
The City of Oakland does offer online same day online permits for some projects -- at the same cost as if they had actually done plan check. The tradeoff is then the entire project gets built with zero City oversight -- leading to the risk that a field inspector will object to something during inspection that could have been handled at the paperwork stage.
Thank you Rod and Oakland Report. This is an excellent and needed article. Share it everywhere. Mindy Pechenuk for Oakland Mayor. 2026