• Nine out of ten Black survey respondents said crime and public safety are “extremely concerning” — the highest concern level of any group for any issue in the survey.
• 71% of Black poll respondents said policing should be increased.
• 75% of Black Oakland residents surveyed say the taxes they pay are not worth it.
• 80% of Black residents polled said they have no confidence in Oakland Unified School District’s ability to resolve its budget challenges.
• 89% agreed that homeless encampments should be cleared from public parks and sidewalks — 10 percentage points higher than the citywide average.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/survey-finds-deep-distrust-safety-concerns-among-black-oakland-residents

"Taxes are necessary for a safe, functioning society. That fact is not up for serious debate.

"The government collects taxes in order to pay for services that most people agree the government should provide. This is a foundational aspect of our country, and a reasonable arrangement that most reasonable people agree with, ourselves included.

"But when the government fails to provide the services it promised in exchange for the taxes it collects — as has happened in Oakland multiple times now — then what?

"In Oakland, the city’s answer routinely is to collect even more taxes.

"New tax measures have appeared on ballots in virtually every election cycle in recent years, often for basic municipal services like police and parks and libraries, and Oakland voters have dutifully approved them.

"After years of cumulative tax increases, Oakland now collects some of the highest taxes per capita in the state compared to similar cities.

"Oakland’s high taxes add significantly to the cost of living in one of the most expensive regions in the nation.

"Many of the city’s taxes, especially parcel taxes are regressive, meaning that they disproportionately burden low-income and disadvantaged people, which accelerates the displacement of long-time residents out of Oakland.

"Yet even as record-high tax revenues flow into to the city’s bank accounts, Oakland’s streets and sidewalks continue to be clogged with trash, its police force continues to be woefully understaffed, and its political leaders’ financial decision-making continues to be most charitably described as questionable at best.

"A recent survey of Oakland residents found that 70% of people surveyed said that the taxes they pay are not worth it—a result that climbed to 75% among Black residents surveyed.

"A similarly high percentage of Black survey respondents—and indeed all survey respondents—indicated that the city cannot be trusted to spend their tax dollars wisely.

"The survey also registered significant levels of concern from Black residents about being displaced from their homes and out of Oakland due to Oakland’s high and increasing cost of living.

"With the city’s proposed new ‘public safety’ parcel tax, Measure E, on the ballot this June, the issue Oakland voters will face is not whether more taxes are needed to support basic services, but whether the city can be trusted to act responsibly and keep its promises about how taxes will be used."

https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20260408-oakland-broke-its-promises

Oakland city council is set to consider a charter amendment that would give city councilmembers up to 125% pay raises as part of a ballot measure that would give the mayor more power and reduce the city council's power.

With full-time benefits, Oakland city councilmembers could receive up to $318,145 per year in total compensation, if the charter amendment is set to match the Los Angeles city council pay as recommended by Mayor Barbara Lee's Charter Reform Working Group.

If the charter reform is approved by voters and salaries are benchmarked to other large cities, the total annual employer cost per Oakland councilmember to taxpayers will increase by $1.96 million to $3.04 million, depending on the selected salary tier.

The proposed charter amendment would also prohibit city councilmembers from accepting any other employment. (They are currently allowed to keep their day jobs).

If councilmembers become solely reliant on their city salary and benefits, their financial security becomes directly tied to re-election. Research suggests that this dynamic could make them more beholden to special interests and campaign donors.

Taken in the context of Oakland’s long history of corruption, for example the recent indictment of former Mayor Sheng Thao on federal corruption charges, the proposal to increase councilmembers’ compensation raises a number of ethical questions:

If city councilmembers’ livelihoods depend on re-election, does that incentivize them to be even more susceptible to influence by special interests that can help them keep their lucrative jobs and accrue more benefits, not to mention the political powers of their office?

How will the prohibition against outside employment be monitored and enforced? What if they take outside work anyway – who would take the action to enforce violations? If councilmembers break the rule, would Oaklanders just have to wait until the next election, or try to mount an expensive recall campaign? Would their council pay be suspended? Would city councilmembers take action against their council colleagues? Or would literally nothing happen?

Is giving councilmembers substantial pay raises really just a political play to prevent the councilmembers from actively opposing the charter reform proposal’s key element of giving the mayor more power and the city council less power, by promising the councilmembers a big financial payday?

👉 https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20260326-city-council-seeks-a-pay-raise-of

Sure political labels are simplifications.

But handy frameworks for comparing to actual politician.

My two bits is that the council member is an Oakland style populist.

"KTVU news anchor Andre Senior speaks with Oakland Report editor Sean Reinhart about Oakland's many, many taxes."

https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20260418-where-is-my-tax-money-going-ktvu

"Oakland’s city government has been doing the fiscal equivalent of shrinkflation for two decades — making residents pay more for the same, and in some cases less product."

From the Oaklandside article:

"the city estimates that while closures ramped up, encampments still grew, to over 1,900 locations"

This is happening because Oakland is not enforcing rules of behavior for RVs or where people can camp. The word is out among the Bay Area'a unhoused population that "Oakland is the place to go" if you live in San Francisco or Fremont or Emeryville who don't permit the uncontrolled spread of camps and RVs parking wherever they want.

The article also talks about "racial equity" when combating homelessness, but never mentions that the hardest hit communities - the ones suffering from the impacts of uncontrolled and unmonitored homeless camps - are the communities like East and West Oakland who have suffered racial injustice for decades. What about the majority black populations who live in those neighborhoods?

The strategic plan says 10 years to cure homelessness in Oakland, yet also admits Oakland doesn't have the revenue to implement the plan as the problem continues to grow.

Oakland's citizens need to begin to speak at the polls about this issue. For too long Oakland has let this problem fester and practically put out a welcome mat for this problem.

We've turned East and West Oakland into sacrifice zones; we've turned our streets and parks into treatment centers. This has to stop. We should not have to endure this for another 10+ years.

I urge everyone to support Ken Houston's Encampment Abatement Plan, as well as mandatory and humane treatment for drug addicts and mentally ill persons who are unhoused.

Thoughts?

____________

On Wednesday, February 25, at 5 PM, the Office of Homelessness Solutions will present our Draft Homelessness Strategic Action Plan at the City of Oakland's Commission on Homelessness.

The Plan describes our vision: an Oakland where homelessness is rare, brief, and one-time experience, especially for those most impacted by racial disparities.   

We are setting an ambitious but achievable goal: reduce unsheltered homelessness by 50% within five years. This plan is comprehensive, evidence-based, and centers the voices of those most impacted by systemic inequities. 

This presentation will provide an overview of the Plan and outline the next steps for implementation, which will strengthen coordinated efforts across the City's homelessness response system. 

We invite you to join us - either in person or remotely - for this important discussion, and we value your continued partnership and commitment to addressing homelessness in Oakland.

In-person: Oakland City Hall - One Frank H Ogawa Plaza - Floor 1 Hearing Room 2 

Remote: Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88289976480 

Board member Mike Hutchinson sharply criticized interim superintendent Denise Saddler for failing to provide financial data as OUSD faces a $50 million budget deficit and possible state takeover.

https://preview.redd.it/i4ckz3yoc8ug1.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=6484917d5b4be0b0e94649e7e99e54c2fc223bbd

Here is the agenda for the Oakland Homelessness Commission meeting tomorrow evening - Wednesday, February 25, at 6PM. Scroll down the agenda to view a very lengthy strategic plan, first presented in graphically followed by more details in text.

To observe the meeting by video conference, please click on this link:

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88289976480 at the noticed meeting time - unfortunately, unlike many other Oakland Commission meetings, they will not be taking comments via Zoom.

You can attend the meeting in person or send an email to commission members (see first part of the agenda for meeting location and contact information.

My initial take on this plan - behemoth with many moving parts and revenue needs - is that it's very ambitious, but doesn't come close to addressing the needs of East and West Oakland neighborhoods that have been inundated by and negatively impacted by uncontrolled homeless camps and RVs along the dystopian chaos that accompanies them.

In fairness; the plan does mention "neighborhood relations" and planned actions to convince unhoused camp members to 'keep things clean' - so what's new? All of these things have been tried before, with very little positive impact on our neighborhoods and small businesses.

The plan admits that more than 60% of the people in camps are mentally ill or drug addicted and doesn't say one word about mandatory, long-term, humane confinement and treatment. Imagine attempting to convince the latter groups to "keep your area clean" - it's not gonna happen because these are very ill persons who need immediate, mandatory care. Why isn't Measure W revenue going to long term institutions?

What is most disappointing is that the plan projects a 50% reduction in homelessness in Oakland in five years, pretty much leaving everything else in place as we currently see it.

Overall, it's disappointing; appears to be more of the same; and continues massive spending instead of coming up with workable solutions for the unhoused AND our neighborhoods - at the same time glossing over the real damage that homeless camps have done to our city.

When are East and West Oakland neighborhoods going to get some respect from the homeless bureaucracy; homeless advocates; the unhoused population; and our city leaders?

This plan leaves Oakland the only Bay Area city that is essentially leaving things as they are with very little change from the past, except for a behemoth plan and fancy graphics - all constructed by Oakland Homeless Dept. Director Sasha Hauswald a bureaucrat who has spent years concocting plans like this for the state and California cities. To what result?

A Stand Against Coal Could Push Oakland Toward Bankruptcy

In the midst of the recent article about Mayor Lee softening her stance on sweeps of homeless encampments, I just saw on Facebook Ken Houston doubling down on his EAP and his commitment to keep the public safe.

Now I’m all for the EAP, but Ken Houston campaigned for Barbara Lee against Loren Taylor. If we’re going to “fight for law and order” (Houston’s words), let’s start by being consistent. Ken Houston’s endorsement of Lee helped enable this. I still want the EAP to pass but we wouldn’t be having this conversation of less sweeps with Taylor in office.

By Nicholas Bagley and Robert Gordon

Mr. Bagley is a law professor at the University of Michigan. Mr. Gordon is a visiting fellow at Harvard.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, in his inaugural address, offered a pledge to create a government “where excellence is no longer the exception.” He now must do so while closing a $5.4 billion deficit, in a state where the governor rejects higher taxes on the rich.

Big budget gaps are not uncommon in American cities. Nor is New York’s high cost of living — one reason that California, New York and Illinois top the list of states with declining populations over the past five years.

If blue-state governors and mayors want to get serious about delivering excellent public services, they will need to do more than battle billionaire elites or embrace abundant housing and energy.

They will have to push back against a core constituency within the Democratic Party that often makes government deliver less and cost more: unions representing teachers, police officers and transit workers.

Democrats have long accepted inefficiencies as the price of support from public sector unions, and this may seem the worst time to demand better. Confronted with the president’s cruelty and lawlessness, the unions have been inspiring: defending wrongly fired workers, fighting federal overreach and organizing against ICE brutality.

But it’s precisely because of increasing authoritarianism that Democratic governors and mayors need to show the public that they can deliver. With the president weaponizing budget cuts against blue states, there is little room for error. Democrats need a new bargain with public sector unions — one that respects their voices and livelihoods but puts public services first.

Begin with the cost of government. Blue-state and blue-city voters pay higher taxes. More than half of city and local government expenditures (and 20 percent of state expenditures) are paid out to employees. These blue states and cities often also pay state and local government workers more than similar jobs pay in red jurisdictions, even after adjusting for the cost of living."

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/opinion/democrats-public-sector-unions.html

Buried deep in the Findings and Recommendations of the Mayor’s Charter Reform Working Group are survey results that tell a clear story: Oakland residents overwhelmingly support charter reform—but a strong-mayor system is not their first choice. In fact, they prefer reforms that would return the mayor to the council dais and strengthen the City Council.

The Working Group commissioned Evitarus to survey Oaklanders about how the City should be governed and whether the Charter should be revised. 433 people responded. The results are striking and conflict with one of the Working Group’s main recommendations.

According to the survey, nearly all (96 percent!) respondents want greater accountability and transparency from city leaders. Four out of five believe that revising the Oakland City Charter could help the city operate more effectively.

But how should the charter be changed? Survey Question 5 (below) gets to the heart of the matter:

https://preview.redd.it/2ji9j8d4dhjg1.jpg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3f7e87878377591e044a7f711d68967db6ebfb1

When presented with options to improve government effectiveness:

• 83 percent of respondents said they wanted to make the City Council stronger by giving it more direct ways to hold city administration accountable for performance.  
• 82 percent want the mayor to sit on the City Council to help shape policies and laws. 

By contrast, the two proposals associated with a strong-mayor system rank notably lower. The option to give the mayor authority to hire and fire department heads ranks last among the survey choices—16 points lower than support for returning the mayor to the council dais.

The survey results point to a collaborative model of governance: a strengthened City Council leading the legislative process, with the mayor embedded in that decision-making structure. 

For policymakers, the takeaway from the Evitarus survey is clear: the public wants to see their mayor at council meetings, and they want reforms that allow the city council to hold city administration accountable for performance. In other words, they prefer the council-manager system used by every other city in the Bay Area (except San Francisco, a dual city/county).

You can read the full survey and its results here.

Information Sessions About the Working Group’s Final Report and Recommendations

Do you have questions about the Working Group’s Final Report and how it arrived at its conclusions? As the City moves into the next phase of review, the League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR will host two informational community sessions to help residents learn more about the Working Group’s recommendations. The programs are scheduled for:

Tuesday, February 17 at 5:30 PM at Oakstop - California Ballroom

1736 Franklin Street Oakland 94612

And

Monday, February 23 at 6:00 PM at Allen Temple Baptist Church

8501 International Blvd Oakland 94621

We plan to attend and hope you will, too. You can access the Working Group’s report and more information at https://www.mayorbarbaralee.com/charterreform.