Shenanigans on the Boulevard
Where's the Beef? Where's the Park?

by Dennis Evanosky

By July 1, Oakland property owners should know if they will be digging deeper to help the City of Oakland out of its latest financial crisis. On Valentine's Day, City Administrator Deborah Edgerly submitted a report to the City Council which spelled out the need to increase the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) fee from the current $111 to $151 or $161. In addition, Edgerly proposes to add an annual cost-of-living increase of up to 5 percent based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index.

Since voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978, shrinking budgets have confronted local governments, which have consistently looked for ways to raise revenues while avoiding Proposition 13's restrictions.

In June 1989, the City of Oakland formed the current district to improve lighting and landscaping based on the State of California's Landscaping and Lighting Act, passed in 1972. According to Edgerly's report, the city originally established its LLAD with the following specific purposes:

1. To maintain and service public landscaping, parks, and recreational facilities.

2. To maintain and service city streetlights within the public right of way and other exterior public lighting not a part of a building lighting system within the City of Oakland.

3. To control algae in Lake Merritt (since excluded by the city).

With a rise in costs and services over the years, the city projects an LLAD shortfall this fiscal year. "This past spring, the City Council committed one-time General Fund revenues of $5.5 million to partially close the LLAD funding gap," said Sue Piper, Councilmember Jean Quan's policy analyst. "Another $1.8 million is needed to close the gap for 2006-2007.

Proposition 218, which the voters passed in 1996, gives taxpayers the right to approve or reject local governments' tax increases and special assessments on property. The city must ask property owners to vote themselves an increase in the LLAD assessment. The city will send property owners a mail-in ballot on or about May 5. Property owners will have 45 days to respond. Approval of an increase will require a 50 percent plus one "yes response" from those who return their ballots.

Results go to the City Council for a second reading on July 18. If a majority of property owners approve, the Council will then increase the assessment.

Edgerly cites the acquisition of "hundreds of acres of new parks and new facilities that the city has added to its inventory since 1993" as one of the "key contributors to the problem."

But what have property owners in the Laurel gotten for their money in the way of these new parks and facilities since they approved the last increase? Nothing, if you study the report's appendix, which lists the city's park acquisitions since 1993. According to Edgerly's report, 14 parks in Council District 4 have since fallen under the LLAD aegis. None are in the Laurel.

"There is little gain for the residents of the Laurel in this assessment unless the city uses [part of the assessment] to buy land for a park in the Laurel," one neighborhood activist said.

The Laurel has few open spaces that the city could develop into a park. In 1997 the city missed a chance to create a park at 39th Avenue and Redding Street.

Our neighborhood group has shown the property as a possible site for a park to a parade of decision makers, which include Mayor Jerry Brown, former Councilmember Dick Spees, former City Manager Robert Bobb, and Councilmember Jean Quan.

Each time, we've gotten polite smiles and nods. Now we've learned the property has changed hands, and once the new owner pays the liens, a parking lot will take over the spot. Oh well.

The Laurel does benefit from the streetlights and median maintenance that LLAD provides, but isn't it about time that the planners and officials listen to residents, enforce the Oakland general plan that calls for a park, and build one in the Laurel?

"We deserve a decent park, not a postage stamp mini-park, not a few planter boxes and benches on MacArthur, but a real park," another activist said. "Any plans to make the Laurel denser should not go ahead without a definite plan for a park a plan with real dates. No more excuses."