<\/p>\n
Oakland\u2019s\u00a0challenges are real, but before voters authorize another tax to fund public safety, they need assurances that City Hall is spending money responsibly and achieving results that benefit residents.<\/p>\n
Yalonda M. James\/The Chronicle<\/p>\n
Over the past two decades, Oakland has layered tax upon tax via the ballot box in the name of preserving public safety, neighborhood services and civic stabilization. According to a May 2026 report<\/a> by the nonprofit group Citizens Oakland, the city\u2019s parcel tax burden alone \u201chas grown 6x faster than inflation over 20 years.\u201d<\/p>\n Yet the city has failed to keep many of the staffing and service promises attached to its spending measures. Residents now pay some of the highest local taxes in California and still have deteriorating public services, chronic budget instability and widespread frustration over basic city governance.<\/p>\n On June 2, Oakland voters once again will have to make a difficult but familiar choice: add new taxes to address urgent needs or withhold support from a government many no longer trust to spend effectively.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Measure E is a parcel tax, like many before it, with worthy goals. Funds are restricted in their use, mainly for improving 911 times, violence prevention, fire and emergency medical services, homelessness encampment mitigation and illegal dumping cleanup. These are priorities few residents would dispute.\u00a0<\/p>\n Supporters\u00a0\u2014 which include Mayor Barbara Lee, the City Council and municipal labor unions (firefighters, nurses and service employees, among others)\u00a0\u2014 describe Measure E as a modest annual parcel tax of $192 for single-family homes and $131 per multifamily unit. (The measure hits nonresidential properties much harder; at the same time, city officials say they\u2019re trying to give businesses a tax break with Measure C<\/a>.)<\/p>\n San Francisco Chronicle Logo<\/p>\n Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Measure E would raise roughly $34 million annually for nine years and require only a simple majority to pass.<\/p>\n This new tax may not sound overly burdensome, especially because its implementation would coincide with a much more onerous tax to backfill police and firefighter pensions winding down. But it adds to an already full slate of resident-borne costs; this is Oakland\u2019s fourth new tax in three years. And the city has a history of poorly managing its voter-approved ballot measure revenue, frequently drawing criticism for unspent funds, structural deficits and out-of-compliance spending.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n That was the case with Measure Q, a parcel tax passed by voters in March 2020 to provide over $30 million annually to fund city parks, recreational services and programs to address homelessness. An audit of the measure<\/a>, which costs $148 annually for single-family homes, found that Oakland has failed to utilize funds effectively or meet promised baseline maintenance services; the city, in fact, underspent\u00a0taxes, accruing a fund balance of nearly $22 million as of June 30, 2023.<\/p>\n The city has also struggled to comply with the requirements of the 2024 public safety Measure\u00a0NN, which demanded the city budget for, hire and maintain at least 700 sworn police officers.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, just because one pension funding measure is winding down does not mean Oakland is free from other obligations it must navigate. Oakland still has nearly $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, requiring substantial annual contributions to pay down the debt. In 2023, the city paid more than $130 million in interest alone<\/a> on its pension debt.\u00a0<\/p>\n Many find fault with the way Measure E got onto the ballot: It was a citizens\u2019 initiative largely funded by a political action committee backed by Oakland\u2019s public employee unions, which spent over $500,000 on the measure. Some critics argue the measure functions primarily as a\u00a0payout<\/a> for those unions.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Barbara Leslie of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce doesn\u2019t see it that way. She supports the measure\u00a0\u2014 with caveats.<\/p>\n \u201cThe funds that would come from the parcel are badly needed,\u201d she said. But added \u201cthat the appetite for\u00a0Oaklanders to keep voting for this is waning. But whether we\u2019ve reached the moment of diminishing returns, I don\u2019t know.\u201d<\/p>\n The measure\u2019s opponents, which include business, real estate and civic groups as well as Empower Oakland<\/a>, a political advocacy group, say they are tired of the city\u2019s inability to work with the budget it has. In April, the Alameda County Taxpayers\u2019 Association\u00a0and Oakland attorney Marleen L. Sacks filed a lawsuit against the city of Oakland and the City Council, accusing Service Employees International Union Local 1021 of being the \u201cfront\u201d for what should have been a council-sponsored parcel tax \u2014 and burying the evidence by ignoring public records act requests. The lawsuit alleges<\/a> that the city has unlawfully concealed records relating to Measure E and engaged in a \u201ccoordinated and deeply troubling effort\u201d to evade the two-thirds vote that California law would otherwise require for the tax.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom our perspective, (Measure E) is nothing but a blank check,\u201d Sacks told the editorial board. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t increase police staffing or shelter beds for the homeless. It doesn\u2019t increase 911 operators (or) provide any particular improvements in services.\u201d<\/p>\n Oakland\u2019s public safety challenges are real. Illegal dumping remains pervasive. Homelessness continues to strain neighborhoods and city resources. Police staffing shortages have had tangible impacts on emergency response times and investigative capacity. The fire department is driving 20-year-old trucks.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n But voters are justified in wondering why, after repeated tax increases, Oakland is still unable to provide reliable baseline services.<\/p>\n Many voters understandably fear what further service reductions could mean for public safety and neighborhood quality of life. They believe a \u201cyes\u201d vote should not be treated as an endorsement of Oakland\u2019s broader fiscal stewardship.<\/p>\n But neither should a \u201cno\u201d vote be interpreted as opposition to violence prevention or homelessness services.\u00a0<\/p>\n Oakland genuinely needs resources to address serious urban challenges. But the city government has not earned unquestioning confidence that additional taxes will produce the promised results. Oakland\u2019s leaders cannot rely indefinitely on emergency revenue measures while avoiding deeper conversations about spending priorities, pension obligations and administrative accountability.<\/p>\n The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.<\/p>\n Oakland residents deserve to know whether the city has a sustainable financial plan beyond asking taxpayers for additional contributions every few years. And they deserve evidence that prior measures achieved their stated goals before being asked to approve the next one.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n