For years, city leaders and advocates have repeatedly claimed that the city’s failures are someone else’s fault, criticisms are personal attacks, and demands for accountability are acts of oppression.
This article sparked a memory. I served on my local school board’s facility and technology committee. We had a large number of roof replacement projects at specific schools that were being paid for by a sales tax program. We had a tropical storm move through Atlanta and damage the roof of a school that was not part of the replacement program. We could NOT use the funds from the voter approved sales tax program to address the emergency because the emergency project was not on the project list approved by the voters. The public was quite harsh with us over this matter. We followed the rules, which was the sole purpose of the committee. There was no “eject” for emergencies. When everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency.
I like when voters have the option to approve taxes for specific purposes or projects. I have managed numerous sales tax and bond programs in my career. I might suggest eliminating the “eject” option that allows the city to use the funds for any purpose in the event of a fiscal emergency. These tax programs should be managed separately from the general fund. Emergencies should be managed separately as well.
Our entire system relies on trust. Our money. Our representatives. Our elections. Our criminal justice system. Our social cohesion.
Recent decades seem to me to have embraced the destruction of accountability.
Holding a person or an organization accountable has become difficult, if not impossible. So many reasons, excuses, theories, concerns, levels of empathy, etc. are offered to undermine basic accountability and even condemned as unfeeling, uncaring, unsympathetic, etc.
And then audits and reports are either buried or ignored or dismissed as unfair or political.
Without accountability, nobody is responsible or needs to care about outcomes. Everyone gets an 'A.' Everyone gets a raise. Nobody can be fired. No contract can be terminated.
Ultimately, unless we can restore accountability to our culture and our society, we are lost.
Instead of results we seem to be satisfied with talk, endless discussions, endless committees and task forces, endless meetings. Can anyone else see the root of this problem?
Thank You Mr. Scott for a heartfelt and well researched and reasoned appeal to the voters of Oakland to hold their elected officials accountable.Most of the special taxes are inherently regressive, and ultimately make the city less afffordable for average working people. But when every new tax has an escape clause that negates its entire justification, we have simple fraud and deliberate deception directed at voters. It may take several election cycles of failed tax initiatives for the pie in the sky crowd to face reality for the first time.
First it's "Defund the police". Now, it's 'Give us more money for the police'. Meanwhile, the permissive nature of Oakland law enforcement continues to degrade the quality of life and hollow out retail tax revenues. Oakland can't even host a Walmart or an In-N-Out for godssake.
The kids will vote for this property tax increase before returning to their constant complaining about the cost of housing in Oakland.
Don’t disagree at all with the argument here, but the leading photo for this article is tasteless and inappropriate. Yes, public employee unions cynically preying on our progressive sympathies is a real thing. But shady male figures menacing a young woman on the street is quite another.
Among these anti tax articles being spewed out here is very little in suggestions of what would be a solution. Oh I found this but it’s about it,
“A healthy city requires empathy, yes—but also discipline, integrity, and competence”
Very vague! Can you find one of these fantastically employed writers to maybe make some competent suggestions? My guess would be it’s along the lines of no new taxes, right? Not gonna be enough, an easy prediction.
Tom—this is the standard dodge: demand “solutions,” ignore the ones already implied, then default back to “more taxes.”
Fine. Here they are, plainly:
• Enforce existing fiscal controls before asking for new revenue
• Stop reallocating voter-restricted funds under “emergency” pretexts
• Tie compensation growth to actual revenue—not projections
• Audit contracting and no-show work orders
• Prioritize core services over ideological programming
The City often ignores recommendations from our own elected City Auditor—that’s a matter of record. So asking for “solutions” while existing oversight is sidelined isn’t serious.
And yes—until we get the forensic audit Barbara Lee promised, and a full report on waste, the answer is no new taxes.
Once that’s done—and we have trustworthy stewards of public money—then we can move forward. You keep glossing over that part.
So here’s a question for you:
Do you trust the current administration to be honest and competent with our money?
The writer complains that City workers aren’t getting the work done that City residents need and deserve, then places that with his desire to explicitly tie the compensation changes for City workers to annual revenue changes, revenue which is now heavily undermined by the massive Federal budget cuts. In bad budget years this inflexible approach would be likely to cause City workers to leave for better compensating jobs elsewhere, which would exacerbate the problems in City services which the writer complains about here. These stated desires of his are in conflict with each other.
It’s worth noting that if the writer really wanted to fund the services he claims City residents deserve, and he’s sincere in his complaints about regressive revenue measures, he would persistently advocate for revenue measures which tax wealthier Oakland residents much more heavily, regardless of the ideologies and political activities of those wealthy people. It will be interesting to see if the writer does this. That would be a good measure of the writer’s sincerity.
Doug—this is what happens when you confuse roles and build an argument on top of it.
I’m not an elected official. I don’t set policy—I demand accountability as a taxpayer. That’s the job. You’ve collapsed that distinction and then criticized me for not governing the city myself.
You also sidestep the central point and invent a contradiction that only exists because you misstate the argument. My position is simple: tie compensation growth to fiscal reality so it reflects performance and sustainability—not politics and wishful thinking. That’s not “inflexible,” it’s discipline. Every private-sector worker lives under it. Pretending public compensation should be insulated from reality—even as the city declares repeated fiscal emergencies—is exactly how we got here.
And you ignore the core issue: documented corruption and mismanagement. Grand jury reports. Auditor findings. Federal indictments. A recalled mayor heading to trial.
Until that’s addressed—real accounting, auditor recommendations followed, basic stewardship restored—no serious person should be calling for more taxes.
You didn’t engage any of that. You built a straw man, ignored the failures, and shifted the burden away from those in power.
You say that you want City services and that City residents deserve those services. As a former representative of City workers, you’re well aware that there are a large number of ways to negotiate the contracts of City workers which addresses budgetary issues and shows fiscal discipline. You demand that City management force workers under Union contracts to accept your version of fiscal discipline.
You claim here that it’s not your job to set policy, yet you demand the implementation of this and other policies, some of them poorly sketched out. What would happen if City workers refused to accept the demands you wish management to impose? What would happen to City residents who had services taken from them because you decided they are not worthwhile? These problems with your arguments are unaddressed.
So it appears that you’re not going to argue for progressive taxation, despite your crocodile tears in that area. It’s also appearing through its exclusion from your attacks that the portion of the City budget which covers police officers and the Union which represents them are not going to receive your scrutiny.
My version of fiscal discipline? What is that, exactly? Again, I don’t make policy. You’re really bad at this. At this point, this isn’t a good-faith conversation. You sound like someone who may be a bit unstable. But take care.
Actually you’re really bad at this. You’re not going to break the unions which seems to be a goal. Seems, I don’t really know that’s what you want but it’s starting to sound like it. Maybe stronger leadership that affirms a living wage and lives up to the commitments is good enough for some progress. You want potholes filled, good but that’s not enough to make responsive governance, you’ll need to explain many times over what is actually fair and then work with existing and new leadership to make it happen. There’s no quick fix here especially through the people and organizations that have historically fought for better wages and living standards. Those who benefit the most should pay the most. If you think that’s a contradiction then look at the difference in people’s income and living standards so you can see a difference between a middle class life vs the top of the heap, it’s a big difference.
This is a great article. Thank you. I’m guilty of being a victim of emotional blackmail and voting to increase taxes for social services. Not anymore. At least until we see better management of our budget.
I’ve read elsewhere that the 1,000 or so city employees are among the highest paid in the Bay Area. Have you written about this issue? (I’ll search)
I’m thankful that you’re engaging with the issue in this way, plainly stating what you think are reasonable solutions and these are, can you get either the voters or some new people in place within city government to talk plainly to the citizens in an effort to create some understanding with these ideas. I respect Barbara Lee and Oakland deserves a leader as strong as she was and to live up to those goals. To answer your question, I don’t usually trust until there is verifiable progress so in this case not very much. No glossing over that but you may have to build trust concurrently with some progress.
This article sparked a memory. I served on my local school board’s facility and technology committee. We had a large number of roof replacement projects at specific schools that were being paid for by a sales tax program. We had a tropical storm move through Atlanta and damage the roof of a school that was not part of the replacement program. We could NOT use the funds from the voter approved sales tax program to address the emergency because the emergency project was not on the project list approved by the voters. The public was quite harsh with us over this matter. We followed the rules, which was the sole purpose of the committee. There was no “eject” for emergencies. When everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency.
I like when voters have the option to approve taxes for specific purposes or projects. I have managed numerous sales tax and bond programs in my career. I might suggest eliminating the “eject” option that allows the city to use the funds for any purpose in the event of a fiscal emergency. These tax programs should be managed separately from the general fund. Emergencies should be managed separately as well.
Our entire system relies on trust. Our money. Our representatives. Our elections. Our criminal justice system. Our social cohesion.
Recent decades seem to me to have embraced the destruction of accountability.
Holding a person or an organization accountable has become difficult, if not impossible. So many reasons, excuses, theories, concerns, levels of empathy, etc. are offered to undermine basic accountability and even condemned as unfeeling, uncaring, unsympathetic, etc.
And then audits and reports are either buried or ignored or dismissed as unfair or political.
Without accountability, nobody is responsible or needs to care about outcomes. Everyone gets an 'A.' Everyone gets a raise. Nobody can be fired. No contract can be terminated.
Ultimately, unless we can restore accountability to our culture and our society, we are lost.
Instead of results we seem to be satisfied with talk, endless discussions, endless committees and task forces, endless meetings. Can anyone else see the root of this problem?
Thank You Mr. Scott for a heartfelt and well researched and reasoned appeal to the voters of Oakland to hold their elected officials accountable.Most of the special taxes are inherently regressive, and ultimately make the city less afffordable for average working people. But when every new tax has an escape clause that negates its entire justification, we have simple fraud and deliberate deception directed at voters. It may take several election cycles of failed tax initiatives for the pie in the sky crowd to face reality for the first time.
First it's "Defund the police". Now, it's 'Give us more money for the police'. Meanwhile, the permissive nature of Oakland law enforcement continues to degrade the quality of life and hollow out retail tax revenues. Oakland can't even host a Walmart or an In-N-Out for godssake.
The kids will vote for this property tax increase before returning to their constant complaining about the cost of housing in Oakland.
Good points- the tail has been wagging the dog far too long…
Don’t disagree at all with the argument here, but the leading photo for this article is tasteless and inappropriate. Yes, public employee unions cynically preying on our progressive sympathies is a real thing. But shady male figures menacing a young woman on the street is quite another.
Among these anti tax articles being spewed out here is very little in suggestions of what would be a solution. Oh I found this but it’s about it,
“A healthy city requires empathy, yes—but also discipline, integrity, and competence”
Very vague! Can you find one of these fantastically employed writers to maybe make some competent suggestions? My guess would be it’s along the lines of no new taxes, right? Not gonna be enough, an easy prediction.
Tom—this is the standard dodge: demand “solutions,” ignore the ones already implied, then default back to “more taxes.”
Fine. Here they are, plainly:
• Enforce existing fiscal controls before asking for new revenue
• Stop reallocating voter-restricted funds under “emergency” pretexts
• Tie compensation growth to actual revenue—not projections
• Audit contracting and no-show work orders
• Prioritize core services over ideological programming
The City often ignores recommendations from our own elected City Auditor—that’s a matter of record. So asking for “solutions” while existing oversight is sidelined isn’t serious.
And yes—until we get the forensic audit Barbara Lee promised, and a full report on waste, the answer is no new taxes.
Once that’s done—and we have trustworthy stewards of public money—then we can move forward. You keep glossing over that part.
So here’s a question for you:
Do you trust the current administration to be honest and competent with our money?
Thanks in advance for answering.
The writer complains that City workers aren’t getting the work done that City residents need and deserve, then places that with his desire to explicitly tie the compensation changes for City workers to annual revenue changes, revenue which is now heavily undermined by the massive Federal budget cuts. In bad budget years this inflexible approach would be likely to cause City workers to leave for better compensating jobs elsewhere, which would exacerbate the problems in City services which the writer complains about here. These stated desires of his are in conflict with each other.
It’s worth noting that if the writer really wanted to fund the services he claims City residents deserve, and he’s sincere in his complaints about regressive revenue measures, he would persistently advocate for revenue measures which tax wealthier Oakland residents much more heavily, regardless of the ideologies and political activities of those wealthy people. It will be interesting to see if the writer does this. That would be a good measure of the writer’s sincerity.
Doug—this is what happens when you confuse roles and build an argument on top of it.
I’m not an elected official. I don’t set policy—I demand accountability as a taxpayer. That’s the job. You’ve collapsed that distinction and then criticized me for not governing the city myself.
You also sidestep the central point and invent a contradiction that only exists because you misstate the argument. My position is simple: tie compensation growth to fiscal reality so it reflects performance and sustainability—not politics and wishful thinking. That’s not “inflexible,” it’s discipline. Every private-sector worker lives under it. Pretending public compensation should be insulated from reality—even as the city declares repeated fiscal emergencies—is exactly how we got here.
And you ignore the core issue: documented corruption and mismanagement. Grand jury reports. Auditor findings. Federal indictments. A recalled mayor heading to trial.
Until that’s addressed—real accounting, auditor recommendations followed, basic stewardship restored—no serious person should be calling for more taxes.
You didn’t engage any of that. You built a straw man, ignored the failures, and shifted the burden away from those in power.
Do better.
You say that you want City services and that City residents deserve those services. As a former representative of City workers, you’re well aware that there are a large number of ways to negotiate the contracts of City workers which addresses budgetary issues and shows fiscal discipline. You demand that City management force workers under Union contracts to accept your version of fiscal discipline.
You claim here that it’s not your job to set policy, yet you demand the implementation of this and other policies, some of them poorly sketched out. What would happen if City workers refused to accept the demands you wish management to impose? What would happen to City residents who had services taken from them because you decided they are not worthwhile? These problems with your arguments are unaddressed.
So it appears that you’re not going to argue for progressive taxation, despite your crocodile tears in that area. It’s also appearing through its exclusion from your attacks that the portion of the City budget which covers police officers and the Union which represents them are not going to receive your scrutiny.
My version of fiscal discipline? What is that, exactly? Again, I don’t make policy. You’re really bad at this. At this point, this isn’t a good-faith conversation. You sound like someone who may be a bit unstable. But take care.
Actually you’re really bad at this. You’re not going to break the unions which seems to be a goal. Seems, I don’t really know that’s what you want but it’s starting to sound like it. Maybe stronger leadership that affirms a living wage and lives up to the commitments is good enough for some progress. You want potholes filled, good but that’s not enough to make responsive governance, you’ll need to explain many times over what is actually fair and then work with existing and new leadership to make it happen. There’s no quick fix here especially through the people and organizations that have historically fought for better wages and living standards. Those who benefit the most should pay the most. If you think that’s a contradiction then look at the difference in people’s income and living standards so you can see a difference between a middle class life vs the top of the heap, it’s a big difference.
Seneca,
This is a great article. Thank you. I’m guilty of being a victim of emotional blackmail and voting to increase taxes for social services. Not anymore. At least until we see better management of our budget.
I’ve read elsewhere that the 1,000 or so city employees are among the highest paid in the Bay Area. Have you written about this issue? (I’ll search)
A progressive tax of those who benefit the most is a reasonable goal.
I’m thankful that you’re engaging with the issue in this way, plainly stating what you think are reasonable solutions and these are, can you get either the voters or some new people in place within city government to talk plainly to the citizens in an effort to create some understanding with these ideas. I respect Barbara Lee and Oakland deserves a leader as strong as she was and to live up to those goals. To answer your question, I don’t usually trust until there is verifiable progress so in this case not very much. No glossing over that but you may have to build trust concurrently with some progress.
Pretty rich that this writer says that criticisms are personal attacks when he accused a gay city employee of being a pedophile. Gross.
🍕