LWV League of Women Voters of California
Smart Voter
Alameda County, CA November 5, 2002 Election
Measure FF
Violence Prevention Programs
City of Oakland

Advisory Vote

42084 / 52.9% Yes votes ...... 37454 / 47.1% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Results as of Nov 15 4:54pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (244/244)
Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Impartial Analysis | Arguments | Full Text

Shall all new revenues received from Ballot Measures GG, HH, and II be spent on violence prevention programs?

Summary Prepared by The City Attorney:
This measure is merely advisory. This measure states that the people of Oakland insist all new revenues received from Ballot Measures GG, HH and II, if approved by the voters on November 5, 2002, be spent on violence prevention programs.

As set forth in the measure, violence prevention programs include:

100 new police officers to form new crime reduction teams and foot and bicycle patrols to work in neighborhoods impacted by the recent rise in crime, including officers to work with State and local authorities to ensure that released offenders strictly comply with the terms of their parole or probation;
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years for additional staff to work with victims of domestic violence;
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years for programs to assist ex-offenders upon their return into the community;
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years to expand the successful youth offender program, Pathways to Change; and
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years to expand after school programs in collaboration with the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Oakland Unified School District.

Fiscal Impact from The City Auditor:
This measure is NOT a tax. It is an advisory measure that states that the people of Oakland insist that all new tax surcharge revenues received from Resolutions Number 77326, 77327 and 77328, if approved by the voters on November 5, 2002, will be spent on the following violence prevention programs.

1. 100 new police officers to form crime reduction teams and patrols. Also, to work with State and local authorities to ensure that released offenders comply with their parole or probation terms. $68,200,437 for 5.8 years.

2. $300,000 annually for 5.8 years for additional staff to work with victims of domestic violence. $1,740,000 for 5.8 years.

3. $300,000 annually for 5.8 years for programs to assist ex-offenders upon their return into the community. $1,740,000 for 5.8 years.

4. $300,000 annually for 5.8 years to expand the successful youth offender program, Pathways to Change. $1,740,000 for 5.8 years.

5. $300,000 annually for 5.8 years to expand after school programs in collaboration with the Department of Parks and Recreation and Oakland Unified School District. $1,740,000 for 5.8 years.

FISCAL IMPACT New tax surcharge revenues received may not be sufficient to fund the new police officers program and the violence prevention programs at the stated budget levels. Program funding will be reduced, if needed, according to the new tax surcharge revenues received.

s/ROLAND E. SMITH, CPA
City Auditor

Impartial Analysis from The City Attorney
Measure FF is not a tax. Measure FF is an advisory measure concerning the expenditure of any new City surcharge revenues that the Oakland voters approve in the November 2002 election (Measures GG, HH and II). The purpose of Measure FF is to indicate City voters' general opinion as to whether any new revenues the City receives from the imposition of several tax surcharges that the voters approve in the November 2002 election, shall be used to fund the violence prevention programs set forth in the measure.

Section 9603(c) of the California Elections Code governing the purpose and effect of such an advisory vote states:

". . . advisory vote means an indication of general voter opinion regarding the ballot proposal. The results of the advisory vote will in no manner be controlling on the sponsoring legislative body."

The opinion the voters express on this advisory measure, while of interest to the City Council, would not in any manner legally control the City Council's use of any revenue the City receives from the imposition of the proposed surcharges. The City Council may use the revenues from any surcharges the voters approve in the November 2002 election for any general fund purpose.

s/JOHN RUSSO
City Attorney

  News and Analysis

Montclarion

Oakland Tribune San Francisco Chronicle
Suggest a link related to Measure FF
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Measure FF Arguments Against Measure FF
Measure FF insists that all revenues raised by Measures GG, HH and II be spent on specific violence prevention programs.

Under California law, general tax revenues may not be earmarked for special programs but the voters may state what they want done with the money. This is what Measure FF does. Although the funds will be put in the general fund, the mayor and the city council have pledged to use the money in the following ways:

1. Hire 100 new police officers. Compared to cities our size, Oakland has far fewer police officers and hundreds of thousands more calls for service. We simply need more community police officers visible on our streets. The funds raised by GG, HH and II will put foot and bike patrols in our most troubled neighborhoods, add new officers to monitor the 7,000 probationers and 3,000 parolees living in Oakland and increase the number of officers working to prevent violent crime.
2. Hire additional staff to work with victims of domestic violence. Over half of all domestic violence calls to the police department are repeat calls. We must provide more support for families in domestic crisis.
3. Support programs to assist parole and probations upon their return to Oakland. More counseling and job training are critical.
4. Expand Oakland's successful Pathways to Change. Young offenders will be matched with community-based leaders to help them turn their lives around, using counseling, drug abuse treatment and job training.
5. Expand after school programs. This element of our Violence Prevention Program will provide quality after-school programs that will combine academic enrichment, cultural and recreational activities. Success will be achieved through partnerships with the schools, local youth groups and the Department of Parks and Recreation.

For more information, see http://www.jerrybrown.org

VOTE YES ON FF

s/JERRY BROWN Mayor of Oakland
s/ROBERT L. JACKSON, Pastor Acts Full Gospel Church
s/HENRY L. GARDNER Former City Manager

Rebuttal to Arguments For
The proponents of measure FF know that no one in Oakland would choose to support a proposal that adds 100 new police officers at the expense of anti-violence programs, school programs, and assistance for parolees.

That's why they list the police officers as just one of five features of the advisory. But the advisory itself tells a different story. It recommends that $67 million of the new tax money go to hiring police officers, while only $4 million go to other programs.

Is hiring new police really 17 times more important than EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CITY?

We like the argument in favor of Measure FF! # we just hate Measure FF. We know the city needs new community policing officers. We want additional staff to work with victims of domestic violence, more counseling and job training for probationers, expansion of Pathways to Change, and after school programs. The City has cut $26 million from its general fund this year, and promises to put back $4 million to these programs. That's progress?

When everyone in Oakland has a good education, crime goes down!

When everyone in Oakland has a stable job at a decent wage, crime goes down!

When everyone in Oakland has adequate mental health care, crime goes down!

Oakland needs a police force improved by the reintroduction of the Community Policing program and a new emphasis on preventing crime BEFORE it happens.

Measure FF DOES NOT PROVIDE WHAT OAKLAND NEEDS.

s/SHANNON F. REEVES, President Oakland Branch NAACP
s/KENNETH MOSTERN, Organizer Green Party

Don't support knee-jerk reactions to violence.

Crime is up everywhere, not just in Oakland, because the economy is down. We know what reduces crime. Education, well-paying jobs and mental health care reduce crime. No increase in police will stop the recent increase in homicides. Police come after the fact. We need a more comprehensive strategy, if the motivation for the tax increase is really to stop the increasing homicides.

Do we need police? Of course. But in a year when basic services in the city were cut $26 million, can we honestly say that 100 new police officers is the only thing we should be spending money on? Then why is 96% of this so-called "crime reduction program" targeted at hiring police officers, with only 4% going to violence prevention and none going to jobs or education?

Not one of the newly hired police officers will be a community policing officer, a beat officer who walks a neighborhood # that excellent program has been cut, apparently for good.

Councilmember Nadel presented an alternative plan of 57 new community policing officers, funding for violence prevention programs, and the creation of a special employment program for 43 at-risk Oakland residents to be trained as gardening, street repair, illegal dumping pick-up and tree maintenance crews for two 2-year terms.

When crime is up, it's tempting to address violence with violence. Research shows that unemployment and lack of housing are the key obstacles to exoffender success. If you believe that we need more police but a better balance of funding for other jobs and services as well, vote against this advisory.

s/NANCY J. NADEL City Councilmember
s/WILSON RILES, President Oakland Community Action Network
s/JORDAN SU, Community Organizer People United for a Better Oakland (PUEBLO)
s/KIMBERLY MIYOSHI Chidren's Advocate
s/KENNETH MOSTERN, Organizer Green Party of Alameda County

Rebuttal to Arguments Against
Measure FF is a well thought out program. It specifically calls for helping young people, victims of domestic violence and parolees. And yes, FF insists that the temporary surcharges on parking, utilities and hotels also pay for an additional 100 police for a city that is totally understaffed in this basic service.

The facts are absolutely clear: Oakland has far fewer police than cities its size and receives dramatically more calls for service.

I understand the feelings of the opponents to FF who would like to put money from the police department into education and mental health. But they miss one big fact: other local authorities have these responsibilities: the elected school board handles education; the elected Alameda supervisors take care of mental health.

Only the city government is charged with policing our streets and neighborhoods. And, as your mayor, I am telling you that the criminals far outnumber the police. Oakland simply needs more community police visible in our neighborhoods and street corners. Please, for a safer city, VOTE YES ON FF.

s/JERRY BROWN Mayor

Full Text of Measure FF
This measure is NOT a tax. It is an advisory measure that states that the people of Oakland insist that all new revenues received from Ballot Measures GG, HH, and II, if approved by the voters on November 5, 2002, will be spent on the following violence prevention programs:
100 new police officers to form new crime reduction teams and foot and bicycle patrols to work in neighborhoods impacted by the recent rise in crime. Additional officers will work with State and local authorities to ensure that released offenders strictly comply with the terms of their parole or probation.
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years for additional staff to work with victims of domestic violence.
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years for programs to assist ex-offenders upon their return into the community.
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years to expand the successful youth offender program, Pathways to Change.
$300,000 annually for 5.8 years to expand after school programs in collaboration with the Department of Parks and Recreation and Oakland Unified School District.


Alameda Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: December 6, 2002 03:14 PST
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://ca.lwv.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.