Jean Quan Sucks

There's an article in today's SF Chronicle about the race for Oakland mayor, crime and policing.

The positions taken by our politicians are unsurprising in general, but I was actually pretty shocked when I came across this little gem from Councilwoman Jean Quan, who is running for mayor:

City officials, including Quan, said Measure Y required the city only to set aside money for - but not actually staff - an 802-officer force. That figure includes the 63 that Measure Y would pay for.

I'm not going to rehash the whole sordid story of Measure Y here, but suffice it so say that anyone wh0 knows anything about it knows the whole thing was a sham and a con job. The city has collected millions of dollars in taxes and essentially broken the law by failing to provide the required staffing level.

Quan's claim that the city has to set money aside for 802 officers but not staff them has to be one of the most cynical things I've seen a politician attempt in quite some time. What, precisely, is the point of setting aside the money for the cops if you're not going to actually hire them?

Obviously the real goal was to piss away the Measure Y money on social programs and idiotic pension promises to the remaining cops and other public employees. What a shock that Oakland taxpayers get screwed again.

Anyway, please vote against Jean Quan. I don't really care who you vote for, but this woman is a real piece of garbage.

Oakland's Never Ending Property Tax Nightmare

Readers should take a look at Daniel Borenstein's sobering article from last month about how Oakland's terrible property tax situation came about.

Complaints about overly generous public-employee pensions have (thankfully) become a standard part of the political dialog in California over the past couple of years. Unfortunately, for Oakland, this is the second time employees and their unions have assaulted the city's finances.

According to Borenstein's article, every single homeowner currently pays 0.1575 percent of their assessed home value in property taxes to pay for city pensions promised to employees before 1976. And, as far as I can tell from the article, we will be paying this money basically forever.

0.1575 percent may not sound like a big figure. But consider that state law sets a basic property tax rate of 1 percent. Most cities in the state impose some additional amount, with a typical total set at 1.1 percent.

As I've mentioned here before, Oakland's property taxes are set at more than 1.4 percent per year.

That difference may not sound like a lot, but it means that when a prospective homeowner is picking among Oakland, Berkeley and Orinda, they can expect to pay an additional $2,250 per year to live in Oakland for a $750,000 house.

And for what? The worst school district in the region, and a set of legacy taxes that pay for -- get this -- exactly one current employee. Yes indeed, that $1,200 our homebuyer would have to pay in Oakland to finance the 1976 tax scheme goes almost completely to pay for people who have already retired.

I've spoken to a few realtors about this situation, and they all say the same thing. The property tax discrepancy is already factored into the price of the home. So, when a family looks to buy in Oakland, they simply lower the price they are willing to pay.

What does this mean? In Orinda, the annual cost to own a $750,000 house might be $40,000. The cost in Oakland would be $42,250. So, instead of bidding $750,000 for that house, the buyer will instead bid $710,000, because then the annual-cost numbers work out the same.

My favorite thing about Oakland politics has to be the fact that not a single person of any prominence will talk about this kind of issue.

Oakland's financial mistakes have cost every single homeowner something like 5 to 10 percent of the value of their home. And that's not even counting the additional 10 to 20 percent demolition that takes place when a potential buyer realizes they will have to shell out at least $100,000 per kid (for high school at least) to get any kind of decent education.

What's the point of even voting or participating in the political system if the people you elect are going to make choices that directly and unequivocally rob you and your children of future wealth by reducing the value of your property holdings? Do people really not care at all?

Are Oaklanders so rich, or such nihilists, that they will stand by and watch a completely fake political dialog every year, only to be stabbed in the back again and again with the knife of ridiculous tax rates?

Here's my theory: Everyone in Oakland who has enough money that they could even care about such things has enough that they don't care anymore. And, everyone who cares is poor, so they want taxes set as high as legally possible to fund social programs.

This makes sense to me, since people are constantly complaining about how Oakland has no middle class. Maybe those involved in politics should consider that it is their own policies that have made our town completely uninviting to those in the middle.

Oakland's Gentrification Accelerates

Amid all the bad news since the recession and housing crash began, the world has taken on a grayish hue.

With a do-nothing mayor like Ron Dullums, it's easy to see why this pall has extended to Oakland, at least in the minds of most people.



What's interesting about Oakland, though, is that its future may not really depend at all on the behaviors of its politicians. Sure, they can slow down one thing and speed up another, but they are at the mercy of the underlying trends just the same as the rest of us.

I was pleased to see The OakBook begin a series on the gentrification of Oakland. Of course, they use different words for it, and they go to great pains to label "gentrification" as a politically charged word.

I have a reputation (such as it is) for telling things as they are. In that vein, let me be very clear about what is happening in Oakland: The black people are leaving. In large measure, they are being replaced by Latinos, with a few whites and asians filling in the rest of the mix.

Here's a separate piece of information that hasn't received very much media attention in the politically correct Bay Area press. Take a look at Oakland Unified's "two-year comparison report" (caution: PDF file).  I take a look at these kinds of reports when they come out because, as an Oakland property owner, I realize that a big part of my investment is the performance of our beleaguered school district.

In any event, the report was largely unexciting. Things generally improved, as they have for the last 10 years. OUSD's crypto-trend of becoming a reasonably good school district continues unabated. I call it a crypto-trend because no one talks about it, which is probably just as well, since discussion would probably cause the powers-that-be to try and stamp it out as some kind of racist trick.

Back to the PDF. Usually, I look at these documents they way they're intended to be viewed -- taking into account the ratio of kids performing at or above grade level for each task. But in this document, a separate piece of data jumped out at me -- the denominators.

According this PDF, in 2008--2009, this was the ethnic breakdown of the Oakland school system: 1894 whites, 9358 Latinos, 4206 Asians and 9555 African Americans.

In 2009-2010, there were 1968 whites, 9827 Latinos, 4093 Asians and 8647 African Americans.

Now, let's net out those numbers to see how the district's population has changed:

• Whites, +74 (+3.9%)


• Latinos, +469 (+5.0%)


• Asians, -113 (-2.8%)


• Blacks, -908 (-9.5%)

One of these numbers jumps out as far more significant than the others. A 10 percent reduction in black students in a single year is an enormous change. While I'm sure some part of it is attributable to charter schools or some such, what I can say is that none of it is due to lower overall attendance at Oakland schools. The total number of students increased by 65 from 26,880 to 26,945 over the last two years.

This school district information goes along with the information in the census and the OakBook article to paint a clear picture of Oakland.

The bottom line is this: Oakland is no longer a black-dominated city. And, in several years it will see a black proportion of the population lower than the average American city. This is incidentally is exactly what has happened in San Francisco.

There are some cities in America with sizable affluent black populations -- Atlanta is a great example. Oakland is not such a city. As such, the marked decrease in black population in Oakland is a symptom of the city's rapid gentrification.

There's another movement that I view along similar lines. It's the group of people organizing to encourage locals to enroll their kids in local public schools. Most recently I read an article about a parents' group doing this for Oakland High -- a traditionally low-performing high school.

Such efforts are not really activism. They're actually a natural reaction by rational parents to gentrification. I expect similar movements soon for schools such as Montera Middle School -- a school located in a predominantly upper-middle class area which suffers from low local enrollment and attendant busing of students from bad parts of town.

This is the steamroller of gentrification: Fueled by easy access to Bart and great amenities, encouraged by lackadaisical city planning policies and galvanized by moronically inept activists trying to hold it back.

And, these are all reasons why, in the midst of this sluggish economy, I expect those who invest in Oakland to reap rewards as the unemployed and poor gradually leave our beautiful town.

Why Can't Oakland Compete With San Francisco's Lowell High?

Back from my long absence, I'm still thinking about schools in Oakland.

Some months ago, I wrote a post about magnet schools in Oakland. For the most part I was ignored, save for one person who took the time to inform me that such programs are illegal in California.

I didn't do too much research after receiving this comment. Then, I ran across the following links:

http://www.greatschools.org/cgi-bin/ca/achievement/6397

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_High_School_(San_Francisco)

So, San Francisco has a fantastic, high-performing magnet high school that requires students meet certain academic requirements.

Why can't Oakland do the same thing? For starters, this seems like something the teacher union would like. This school would not be a charter school, so its teachers would be in the union.

And, such a project would pull dollars back into the Oakland school district as parents shifted back to public school from private school. It's common knowledge that parents with high-achieving kids in Oakland send them to private school if they can afford it.

I'm sure many parents would breathe a sigh of relief to have such an option available in this economy.

And, Oakland clearly has the facilities to spare to implement such a project. My understanding is that flight from the Oakland schools to charters and private schools has left many schools half-full.

I recently read on Katy Murphy's blog about how  the union is planning a strike over wages. Maybe they could add a unionized magnet middle and high school to their list of demands.

I also saw a video where the superintendent of schools, Tony Smith, indicated that he wants to look for ways to fix the schools budget crisis. Maybe attracting back students with a magnet school could be part of the solution?

What's the rationale for the city to have no magnet school anyway? It can't be just liberalism -- since San Francisco is plenty liberal and has Lowell. What's going on here?

Oh and one other thing. If Oakland had better options for high-performing middle and high school students, that would increase property values (just look at the values in Piedmont). That would improve the city's tax base, which would help schools as well.

Isn't this a win-win?

The $43 Billion Train to Nowhere

Breaking News: A screwball Federal grant of $2.25 billion has been awarded to California exclusively to subsidize the development of a “bullet train” running north and south . This makes about as much sense as if one were to give a friend or relative $10,000 to stave off the foreclosure of their house… and they go out and blow it all on beer and cigarettes.


The Projected Result: Some work will get done… leaving a ditch that will fill up with water and breed mosquitoes. The project will be abandoned because of financial reality. First off, the balance of the $43 billion estimated price tag has to be accounted for. Should work continue beyond the initial phase then extraordinary cost overruns will arise (think Bay Bridge rebuild).

At some point, long before completion, it will be discovered that there’s no money available to run the train. What? It was expected to pay for itself or even make a profit (like the airlines it’s intended to replace). But, should such a grandiose money hog charge each passenger what it would really cost to use, no one would bother buying a ticket.


Why? First “why” is why does such a ridiculous idea get catapulted to serious consideration? It has political sex appeal. It’s futuristic, glamorous… it captures the imagination… kind of like wearing propeller beanies to generate electricity.

The second “why” is why is it such a stupid idea? California does have a lot of people… but it also has a lot of empty space. The high speed rail that is currently successful (meaning that the local taxing authorities are able and willing to support the negative cash flow) services areas of mostly continuous high population density. Not only is it where people are, it’s also where they want to go. Should someone in Oakland hop on a “California Bullet Train” to Los Angeles (Anaheim) then what? They have to rent a car. If they’re going to the San Fernando Valley they’d get there later and poorer than if they had just taken I-5 in a car they already own.

Out in remote parts of our state are ghost towns like Bodie… where veins of gold gave out. There are also abandoned utopian communes and religious colonies. Some day there will be the remnants of a train to nowhere and some future documentary film maker will tell it’s ironic story.

For Berkeley Liberals, Political Correctness Trumps Competitiveness

I literally nearly spilled my steaming cup of tea all over my hand and arm when I read this week's East Bay Express article about eliminating science labs in the Berkeley schools to free up money for "struggling" students.

How do they define a "struggling" student? It won't surprise you to find out that this word is a synonym for "black and Latino" students.



Apparently, the School Governance Council -- a community body which I hope has absolutely no say in the matter -- voted nearly unanimously to support this reallocation of resources.

I have a few opinions about this, but my most important observation concerns global competitiveness.

Does it never occur to those Leftists out there that our country is in competition with others around the world?

This may shock liberals, but the primary reason why the United States enjoys such a high standard of living is not because Martin Luther King gave such nice speeches, not because Roosevelt packed the court and not because labor unions fought for higher wages for menial work.

Just look around you at all the technological marvels which make your life so easy. Cars, computers and cellphones are all the product of basic research -- a significant part of which was funded by the government.

Basic research is one of the few areas where the government actually contributes toward an increase in relative GDP between one country and another. And, improved comparative GDP is the only reason why our country is considered part of the "first world" while much of the rest of the world lies in poverty.

The government's contribution is critical -- both in educating people and in funding research in promising new areas which are not yet clearly profitable investments.

This issue goes hand in hand with my general frustration about way education "battles" are cast these days in our country. People view education only as a way to raise up people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. While it can serve this purpose, it is vital to think of education instead as a way to raise the ladder as a whole.

So, I oppose cutting UC Berkeley's budget just as much as the students who protested there last month. Sadly, though, the signs those students held aloft said things like "Save Our Janitors' Jobs."

These students don't get it. The measure of our country's competitiveness does not lie with the wages we pay our least-educated people. It lies with the value we place on promoting our best and brightest.

So, we should not fight to fund community colleges. We should fight to fund programs for the smartest kids at the top universities.

Our secondary schools should not worry so much about troublemakers or the "special needs" kids. They should instead fight for magnet and Advanced Placement programs to ensure the most able among us can gain the skills they need to pull us along.

This news from Berkeley reminds me of a scene from a Douglas Adams novel, where it turned out the Earth was populated by middle-managers and "telephone sanitizers." There's nothing wrong with having such people in a society, but they do nothing to make that society great.

Don't these people understand that by closing science labs -- even in the spirit of promoting equality -- they are consigning everybody to a lower standard of living? It sounds to me like someone needs to re-read Atlas Shrugged.

These Leftists spend so much time working on solving the "racial achievement" gap, but I'd prefer just to call it what it is: racism.

After all, no one seems to mind when schools at every level throw untold millions of dollars at the best and the brightest athletes. For some reason, in the athletic sphere we seem to get it -- some people have the skills to get things done, and others can't make it.

Of course, in athletics, the racial mix is far different. I'll let you do the math on that one.

Academics should be no different. And, thank goodness, for the most part it remains a meritocracy.

While most universities have been forced to accept unqualified candidates through quota systems, such efforts are pretty pro forma. To see this for yourself, just compare the makeup of UC Berkeley as a whole to that of an upper-division math or physics lecture hall.

Still, this news from Berkeley is disturbing. If this is the direction we're heading I can't see how we'll continue to compete with other countries such as China, which are much more interested in cultivating their brightest minds than self-flagellating over past inequalities.

When Will the Rotting Corpse of the Global Warming Hoax Finally Begin to Stink?

As this is written, about a week has passed since the initial revelation of hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). At first, the authenticity of such purloined correspondence was in serious doubt… that was until the University itself blurted out that they were, in fact, genuine.

Conservative media lunged into the fray. Meanwhile, the “lame” stream propaganda outlets have remained mostly mum… perhaps because they have been so heavily invested in the perpetuation of such a shabby and dangerous hoax.


A brief history: Back in the 1970s an unmanned space probe entered the atmosphere of Venus. Zounds! Venus was a lot hotter than expected. How could this be? Other than its proximity to the Sun… its atmosphere is really dense. It must be the atmosphere. Could this be a portent of impending disaster for us Earthlings?

Reasoned speculations of climate future have always fluctuated between warming and cooling. Climate is never constant… it has to always be trending towards either warming or cooling. Precipitation also trends up and down… but more locally than globally.

When the Democrats took back both houses of Congress in 2006, the hysterical assault on global economic vitality was fast-tracked in the American political arena. Absurd and obnoxious schemes to micro manage individual behavior and completely subvert macroeconomic processes were given new credence and support.

Through geology and paleontology we have learned of pre-historic ice ages. Not currently being in an ice age means that we are in an interstitial warm period. Within this warm period there have been both cooling and warming trends. Why? There are inconstancies in the primary influences in climate. The Sun warms and cools. The Earth’s orbit goes through a 180,000 year cycle. Volcanoes create temporary disruptions in “normal” circumstances. Global climate and weather are the result of incredibly complex interactions that are still barely understood… if at all.


What about the heat trapping effects of “greenhouse” gasses? The atmosphere is a “soup” of different substances. Most are gasses, primarily nitrogen. Then oxygen and argon. Carbon dioxide is currently at 357 parts per million… that’s a whopping 0.04% of the atmosphere. The mechanics of heat trapping center around the “selective transparency” of different substances. Ultra violet radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, hits the ground, heats the ground… which then re-radiates back up as infra red… which is trapped.

According to the hoaxers, this trapping effect is enhanced by the toxic byproducts of capitalism: CO2 and methane. Actually water vapor and clouds do the vast majority of trapping. Hoaxers contend that the Earth is in such delicate balance that the slightest alteration from the “natural” state can still be catastrophic.

Prosaic demonstrations of the impending doom associated with prosperity, typically by computer models (notorious for wide ranges of outcome resulting from miniscule changes in data input), tend to skip any detailed explanation of the actual physical and chemical goings on in the atmosphere. Hmmmmmm.

We are actually in the infancy of understanding climate trends in real time. We have some pretty neat toys such as satellites and computers. But we are dealing with the interaction of sunlight, wind, precipitation, ocean currents, dust, smoke, and (now wait for it) politics.

Such is extremely fertile ground for hoaxes.

Centuries ago an Italian proto-scientist named Bruno was put to death for deviating from established orthodoxy concerning the mechanics of what we now call the solar system. His colleague, Galileo, recanted and joined the orthodoxy… allowing him to enjoy his life for many more years. My presumption is that he knew what truth is. Unlike falsehoods, truth is immutable. It can be lost but is always rediscovered in exactly the same form.

As Copernicus, the first to develop the modern model of our solar system, lay dying, his sister burned his manuscripts in order to save his soul from eternal damnation. Yet, because of truth’s inherent durability, we still know that the Sun is the center of our world.