Take a look at this: http://tinyurl.com/5s9x6me
You can switch it around to see different ethnicities. As you can see, every year whites and latinos tick up, and blacks tick down. OUSD has lost 40% of its black population in the last decade. That's a huge decline, and sort of oddly worrying.
There must be a story here. Anyone in the mainstream media care to comment?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Another Oakland Pension Update
Apparently Mayor Jean Qunt (pronounced as it's spelt) disagrees with the actuaries who say that Oakland's 1976 crop of retirees will live for some time yet.
Now, far be it for me to argue with a Qunt, but I suspect the actuaries are actually fairly good at their task. Yes, it's amazing that so much money is owed to a set of people who are all in their 70s and above. But, that's the obligation Oakland undertook.
Now, far be it for me to argue with a Qunt, but I suspect the actuaries are actually fairly good at their task. Yes, it's amazing that so much money is owed to a set of people who are all in their 70s and above. But, that's the obligation Oakland undertook.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
More Oakland Pension Nonsense
I noticed none of the local bloggers seemed to care about this story in the Chroncle about Oakland's legacy pension issue.
To refresh your memory, these pensions apply only to workers hired before 1976, so all but one of thousand or so people are just collecting nowadays. So, as usual, the taxpayers are the bagholders for a former liberal scheme.
This particular pension balloon is notable in that:
Stay tuned. This pension is just part of the overall shell game. The bigger part is the 3-and-50 game that our current employees and their union squeezed out of the system.
If only there were some people in California willing to move in the direction Wisconsin and Indiana are headed.
To refresh your memory, these pensions apply only to workers hired before 1976, so all but one of thousand or so people are just collecting nowadays. So, as usual, the taxpayers are the bagholders for a former liberal scheme.
This particular pension balloon is notable in that:
- it is the reason why Oakland homeowners are bilked a 1.4 percent property tax charge instead of the more normal 1.2 percent.
- It is probably the thing that will make Oakland go bankrupt in the end.
Stay tuned. This pension is just part of the overall shell game. The bigger part is the 3-and-50 game that our current employees and their union squeezed out of the system.
If only there were some people in California willing to move in the direction Wisconsin and Indiana are headed.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Why Oakland Measure L Failed
By now it is pretty clear that Measure L has fallen around 3,500 "yes" votes short of passage.
The measure would have taxed each property in Oakland $195 to pay for schools. The teachers' union took no position on its passage, because it would have allowed some of the money to go to charter schools.
The simple answer for why the measure failed is that Oakland's public schools are terrible. But this explanation is not quite as true as it once was. In fact, Oakland's API scores have improved pretty dramatically over the last decade.
Most of this improvement is a consequence of gentrification. Nowadays, we see groups of parents all enrolling their kids at a public school, which pushes out the lower-income kids bussed from the ghetto, improving the school dramatically.
Still, running a school district does cost money, and successful school district in the region typically require some type of parcel tax assistance to be successful.
To increase the odds of passage, I would suggest that the school district make the following changes the next time they place a parcel tax on the ballot:
That third point is extremely important. Oakland's school district should actively publicize the fact that the schools are improving.
And, the district should encourage parents to give public schools another shot. The simplest way to increase funding in the school district is to attract additional pupils.
Several local elementary schools have already experienced significantly higher parent adoption because of efforts by parents' groups to increase enrollment. The district should actively encourage neighborhood enrollment at such schools as Montera and Skyline, both of which would improve dramatically if more local kids attended them.
The bottom line is that Oakland residents will reward success, so long as the payment bears some relationship to the services offered.
The measure would have taxed each property in Oakland $195 to pay for schools. The teachers' union took no position on its passage, because it would have allowed some of the money to go to charter schools.
The simple answer for why the measure failed is that Oakland's public schools are terrible. But this explanation is not quite as true as it once was. In fact, Oakland's API scores have improved pretty dramatically over the last decade.
Most of this improvement is a consequence of gentrification. Nowadays, we see groups of parents all enrolling their kids at a public school, which pushes out the lower-income kids bussed from the ghetto, improving the school dramatically.
Still, running a school district does cost money, and successful school district in the region typically require some type of parcel tax assistance to be successful.
To increase the odds of passage, I would suggest that the school district make the following changes the next time they place a parcel tax on the ballot:
- Make the tax charge residents on a per-house and per-unit basis, not per-parcel. This better matches the revenue to the number of residents, and it doesn't punish people and entities that own vacant land. One of the reasons there was opposition to Measure L is that some folks would pay far more than $195/year because they own additional lots. Asking for money from these additional lots risks strong opposition for relatively little increase in revenue.
- The union needs to accept that the measure will fund both regular schools and charters. Most likely, the future of educating inner-city kids lies in charter schools. Certain charter methodologies appear to significantly improve urban kids' performance. And, as these are adopted nationwide, unions will have to accept a smaller role.
- Focus on the schools' improved performance. Don't just complain about being underfunded.
That third point is extremely important. Oakland's school district should actively publicize the fact that the schools are improving.
And, the district should encourage parents to give public schools another shot. The simplest way to increase funding in the school district is to attract additional pupils.
Several local elementary schools have already experienced significantly higher parent adoption because of efforts by parents' groups to increase enrollment. The district should actively encourage neighborhood enrollment at such schools as Montera and Skyline, both of which would improve dramatically if more local kids attended them.
The bottom line is that Oakland residents will reward success, so long as the payment bears some relationship to the services offered.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
First, We Kill All The Public Employee Unions
By Mark Ross, Contributing Writer
[Disclaimer: the objects of the verb “kill” in the above title are corporate entities and not living organisms.]
Meg Whitman has been buying copious amounts of media time extolling her agenda for a revitalized California. She wants to make the schools good, the government frugal and the future bright. Some of us are getting just a little too adapted to living with elephants in the living room.
Meanwhile, the mysterious villain who paved the way for many of the public sector pathologies that plague our state today is a likely nominee for the other side in the upcoming gubernatorial contest. Jerry the Moonbeam Brown, in his previous tenure as governor, oversaw the unionization of teachers and most other state and local government workers.
And herein lies the rub. Government worker unions, such as the CTA and SEIU, run the state, the counties and the cities. Any attempt by the Legislature, or a city council to adopt a policy contrary to the interests of government employee unions has been thus far slapped down like a drunken bug.
Vallejo is the test case for a new reality that may bring some sense to this mess. The town council had the outrageous temerity to identify union contracts as the agents of their impending bankruptcy. Sorting out and negotiation continues. At a recent town council meeting, city retirees were pitted against local taxpayers. This conflict will likely continue well into the future… taxes will go up (despite a shrinking economy) and benefits will decline.
The “B” word was used earlier this year concerning Oakland’s financial crisis. Here, in Liberalism’s favorite city, bankruptcy is considered a last resort. First, the thugs who run this town want to bankrupt the tax payers… then they’ll look at tinkering with the union contracts.
Lynndee Kemmet of the American Institute for Economic Research, writing in the Chronicle mentioned that the public employee unions have gotten their toadies in the legislature to ram AB155 through the Assembly. Should this pass the Senate, then California cities will be constrained from altering union contracts as a result of bankruptcy. Again, let’s bankrupt the tax payers instead.
This writer is old enough to have lived through several serious recessions. Never before has the public sector (a.k.a. the government) been in such vicious competition with the citizens over money. Why? It is perhaps because of the cumulative effects of union dominance over public policy -- especially fiscal policy.
Some examples of how the public employee unions have a strangle hold on most, if not all, aspects of public policy in California, and many other states, are:
1) Restrictions on hiring police (and other emergency personnel) in order to pump up overtime.
2) Dispatch of both ambulance and fire engine to medical emergencies… in the olden days this would be called “featherbedding”… forcing the “employer” to commit excessive manpower to a task in order to increase the labor cost… and, thus, union member benefit.
3) Reduced classroom size as a benefit to K-12 education. This is my favorite… because Scientific American ran an article declaring that no educational benefit of reduced class size has been demonstrated. This from a graduate student at the right wing, knuckle-dragging bastion of Oakland’s very own Mills College. The proffered explanation is that teachers working in classrooms that have had the number of students reduced, have changed nothing about the way they do their job. There’s just a lot more of them doing things the same way they were done before the latest union thug edict was implemented.
4) In the Los Angeles Unified School District they’ve had to adopt a policy of refusing to accept donated books. It seems that mandated union rules cost the district hundreds of dollars for each “free” book, for cataloging. This in the age of the computer. Readers are most welcome to add to this list.
All along my theory and opinion has been that public employee unions are, ahem, illogical. No competitive pressures exist to moderate excesses of demand. Government is a monopoly. No stockholders or discretionary consumers are available to influence otherwise suicidal financial decisions. In practice, struggling private sector unions have striven to make their industries de facto monopolies as well. The American automobile industry is a prime example of that. Union actions have simultaneously targeted all three corporate entities in order to side step market realities. Too bad Americans are allowed to import automobiles from “unstrangled” foreign economies.
Ms Whitman and any other wannabe candidate for governor of the doomed state of California would be well advised to acknowledge the elephant in the living room. “Let’s make California a right-to-work state” should be the battle cry. We are victims of cowardice as well as union thuggery.
[Disclaimer: the objects of the verb “kill” in the above title are corporate entities and not living organisms.]
Meg Whitman has been buying copious amounts of media time extolling her agenda for a revitalized California. She wants to make the schools good, the government frugal and the future bright. Some of us are getting just a little too adapted to living with elephants in the living room.
Meanwhile, the mysterious villain who paved the way for many of the public sector pathologies that plague our state today is a likely nominee for the other side in the upcoming gubernatorial contest. Jerry the Moonbeam Brown, in his previous tenure as governor, oversaw the unionization of teachers and most other state and local government workers.
And herein lies the rub. Government worker unions, such as the CTA and SEIU, run the state, the counties and the cities. Any attempt by the Legislature, or a city council to adopt a policy contrary to the interests of government employee unions has been thus far slapped down like a drunken bug.
Vallejo is the test case for a new reality that may bring some sense to this mess. The town council had the outrageous temerity to identify union contracts as the agents of their impending bankruptcy. Sorting out and negotiation continues. At a recent town council meeting, city retirees were pitted against local taxpayers. This conflict will likely continue well into the future… taxes will go up (despite a shrinking economy) and benefits will decline.
The “B” word was used earlier this year concerning Oakland’s financial crisis. Here, in Liberalism’s favorite city, bankruptcy is considered a last resort. First, the thugs who run this town want to bankrupt the tax payers… then they’ll look at tinkering with the union contracts.
Lynndee Kemmet of the American Institute for Economic Research, writing in the Chronicle mentioned that the public employee unions have gotten their toadies in the legislature to ram AB155 through the Assembly. Should this pass the Senate, then California cities will be constrained from altering union contracts as a result of bankruptcy. Again, let’s bankrupt the tax payers instead.
This writer is old enough to have lived through several serious recessions. Never before has the public sector (a.k.a. the government) been in such vicious competition with the citizens over money. Why? It is perhaps because of the cumulative effects of union dominance over public policy -- especially fiscal policy.
Some examples of how the public employee unions have a strangle hold on most, if not all, aspects of public policy in California, and many other states, are:
1) Restrictions on hiring police (and other emergency personnel) in order to pump up overtime.
2) Dispatch of both ambulance and fire engine to medical emergencies… in the olden days this would be called “featherbedding”… forcing the “employer” to commit excessive manpower to a task in order to increase the labor cost… and, thus, union member benefit.
3) Reduced classroom size as a benefit to K-12 education. This is my favorite… because Scientific American ran an article declaring that no educational benefit of reduced class size has been demonstrated. This from a graduate student at the right wing, knuckle-dragging bastion of Oakland’s very own Mills College. The proffered explanation is that teachers working in classrooms that have had the number of students reduced, have changed nothing about the way they do their job. There’s just a lot more of them doing things the same way they were done before the latest union thug edict was implemented.
4) In the Los Angeles Unified School District they’ve had to adopt a policy of refusing to accept donated books. It seems that mandated union rules cost the district hundreds of dollars for each “free” book, for cataloging. This in the age of the computer. Readers are most welcome to add to this list.
All along my theory and opinion has been that public employee unions are, ahem, illogical. No competitive pressures exist to moderate excesses of demand. Government is a monopoly. No stockholders or discretionary consumers are available to influence otherwise suicidal financial decisions. In practice, struggling private sector unions have striven to make their industries de facto monopolies as well. The American automobile industry is a prime example of that. Union actions have simultaneously targeted all three corporate entities in order to side step market realities. Too bad Americans are allowed to import automobiles from “unstrangled” foreign economies.
Ms Whitman and any other wannabe candidate for governor of the doomed state of California would be well advised to acknowledge the elephant in the living room. “Let’s make California a right-to-work state” should be the battle cry. We are victims of cowardice as well as union thuggery.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Joe Tuman For Oakland Mayor
Joe Tuman is the only candidate for mayor of Oakland who seems to actually understand or care about the city's problem with public-employee pay and pensions.
For this reason, combined with the enormous sums of money you can expect the corrupt unions to pour into the election, he has little chance of winning the election. Still, if voters want to see any sort of improvement in Oakland's governance, they should vote for him.
I strongly urge my readers to take a look at Tuman's blog, where he answers a host of questions about the future of the city. You'll notice that he appears to have a grip on our problems, and he's offering to do a set of things that seem like those a reasonable person would undertake.
Voters should immediately reject Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan as candidates. Both candidates are part of the existing liberal power structure within the city. Quan, in particular, has presided over the city's fiscal destruction.
While Kaplan is a relative newcomer, she has failed to take on the public-employee unions to any significant degree. The one positive about Kaplan appears to be that she is favored by the city's lesbian community. I am all for Oakland becoming a gay-friendly city, as the average per-capita income of gays significantly exceeds that of Oakland's current average resident. So, to the extent gays and lesbians displace our existing poor residents, this is a good thing.
Some conservatives might consider voting for Don Perata because of his pro-development stances. The key thing to understand with Perata is that he received the endorsement of the police officers' union.
This union is pure evil, as should be obvious to anyone familiar with Oakland's ongoing flirtation with bankruptcy. So, anyone they endorse should immediately be eliminated as a viable candidate.
This year, Oakland is using ranked-choice voting. I recommend the following choices. I suggest not ranking any more than two candidates, because all other candidates would be a disaster, so it is best not even to offer them the illusion of a mandate:
For this reason, combined with the enormous sums of money you can expect the corrupt unions to pour into the election, he has little chance of winning the election. Still, if voters want to see any sort of improvement in Oakland's governance, they should vote for him.
I strongly urge my readers to take a look at Tuman's blog, where he answers a host of questions about the future of the city. You'll notice that he appears to have a grip on our problems, and he's offering to do a set of things that seem like those a reasonable person would undertake.
Voters should immediately reject Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan as candidates. Both candidates are part of the existing liberal power structure within the city. Quan, in particular, has presided over the city's fiscal destruction.
While Kaplan is a relative newcomer, she has failed to take on the public-employee unions to any significant degree. The one positive about Kaplan appears to be that she is favored by the city's lesbian community. I am all for Oakland becoming a gay-friendly city, as the average per-capita income of gays significantly exceeds that of Oakland's current average resident. So, to the extent gays and lesbians displace our existing poor residents, this is a good thing.
Some conservatives might consider voting for Don Perata because of his pro-development stances. The key thing to understand with Perata is that he received the endorsement of the police officers' union.
This union is pure evil, as should be obvious to anyone familiar with Oakland's ongoing flirtation with bankruptcy. So, anyone they endorse should immediately be eliminated as a viable candidate.
This year, Oakland is using ranked-choice voting. I recommend the following choices. I suggest not ranking any more than two candidates, because all other candidates would be a disaster, so it is best not even to offer them the illusion of a mandate:
1. Joe Tuman
2. Rebecca Kaplan
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
No On Measure BB Site
Just a quick post to point visitors to the site created by Marleen Sacks against Measure BB.
I'm somewhat conflicted about this measure. While I appreciate the notion of "starving the beast" by preventing the city from collecting property taxes, I do generally like the idea of parcel taxes because they are regressive.
Of course, there's always the question of whether a parcel tax can be passed along to renters (most of Oakland's undesirable inhabitants are renters). I'm not sure about Measures Y and BB.
And, parcel taxes do lower property values for homeowners, since they raise the total cost of ownership. So, that's a definite negative.
Still, I generally like them, because their impact on a million dollar house is more or less negligible, but it is significant to those on a limited income -- those we'd like to see leave Oakland for good.
The story of Measures Y and BB is so sordid that it does seem like people should vote against it. I would probably vote no if I hadn't moved my legal residence to Nevada several years ago because of my hatred of liberals.
So, take a look at that site and make up your mind. Remember that it needs a 2/3 vote to pass. So, if you vote no, it's like getting two votes for the price of one.
As for me, I'll be in Nevada this weekend early voting against Harry Reid.
I'm somewhat conflicted about this measure. While I appreciate the notion of "starving the beast" by preventing the city from collecting property taxes, I do generally like the idea of parcel taxes because they are regressive.
Of course, there's always the question of whether a parcel tax can be passed along to renters (most of Oakland's undesirable inhabitants are renters). I'm not sure about Measures Y and BB.
And, parcel taxes do lower property values for homeowners, since they raise the total cost of ownership. So, that's a definite negative.
Still, I generally like them, because their impact on a million dollar house is more or less negligible, but it is significant to those on a limited income -- those we'd like to see leave Oakland for good.
The story of Measures Y and BB is so sordid that it does seem like people should vote against it. I would probably vote no if I hadn't moved my legal residence to Nevada several years ago because of my hatred of liberals.
So, take a look at that site and make up your mind. Remember that it needs a 2/3 vote to pass. So, if you vote no, it's like getting two votes for the price of one.
As for me, I'll be in Nevada this weekend early voting against Harry Reid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)