Comments on: Why I Support Dellums’ Tax Increase Plan

By: Stuck Here

Stuck Here — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:08 +0000

Most of the ballot measures that have passed in the last decade or so end up filling up the general fund.

Every time some bleeding heart measure comes up, it gets approved. Once all the money is collected, the existing funding is cut and dumped into the general fund.

We end up getting taxed more, and it doesn’t change the condition of the cause we are voting on.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:55:49 +0000

Even with your allowance for City Hall grabbing at least 50 percent of the new revenue to feather their own nests, the cost estimate is understated.

To see the true cost, step back and consider the political context. Passing this tax encourages the city council to keep proposing parcel tax after tax as they have done for years (Measure Y, Measure Q, Landscape and Lighting Assessment (LLAD) …)

Indeed, the City outright stuffs the ballot box when it has the opportunity. This just happened with the huge LLAD tax increase. The voters defeated it, but City Hall created votes out of thin air and declared the increase was passed. See http://www.orpn.org/LLAD_B06.htm

Measure Y did not deliver one additional police officer for three years. Library cutbacks continue despite Measure Q. For the so-called LLAD, nearly 80 cents of every new dollar goes back to the general fund for anything except for parks, tree trimming, and street lights. The wording of the proposed Son of Measure Y turns out to be full of escape clauses.

Want all this to continue? Then vote for the measure.

Defeating Son of Measure Y is a vote of no confidence in City Hall. Stop the nickel and dime cheating.

By: TheBoss

TheBoss — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:54:27 +0000

Not in the least. Your reply is cute, but completely content free. Let’s hear a valid counter-argument.

Perhaps we could all learn something from eighth graders. I contend that Oakland’s single biggest problem is liberal guilt and the nanny-state behavior it generates. Increased selfishness is a reasonable cure to this ill. And, obviously many Oaklanders agree with me, as the school system continues to lose students every year. Many of those students’ parents are those who have chosen to stop sacrificing their children on the altar of socialism.

As for resentment, you’re damned right I resent Oakland’s limousine-liberal set. They decrease my quality of life, my property values and nearly every other tangible facet of my life. And, I contend, they do poor people just as much harm.

By: charlie stephen

charlie stephen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:32:37 +0000

this is a parody, right?

I mean, the sentiments in this post are about equal to an eighth grader’s — self-centered and filled with resentment.

By: TheBoss

TheBoss — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:16:45 +0000

I tried to make that distinction clear in the first paragraph. Dellums has proposed “parcel taxes for police” while Brunner has offered more specifics. Still, I think the paragraph is accurate, since I only used the Brunner proposal to give a sense of what this might cost.

Let me know if you disagree.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:45:38 +0000

Jane Brunner was the one who said she wants a tax that would hire 200 more officers, not Dellums. (Such a measure would be for police only.) As it says in the Oakbook story, the details of what Dellums is proposing have not yet been released.