Oakland Ballot

7 California

10 City

1 County

MEASURE U: Infrastructure Bond

​

MEASURE U: Infrastructure Bond

​

FISCAL EFFECT

​

• Property taxes ~ $67 per $100,000 of assessed value.

​

• Debt Management Policy - No more than $220/$100, 000.

Measure U: Infrastructure Bond

Reasons to support

This bond will allow the city

• to address housing needs
• to continue transportation upgrades and
• to repair and upgrade facilities.

Reasons to oppose

• Oversight and reporting requirements are weak.
• Property taxes are too high.

Measure Q: Affordable Housing Authorization

Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

​

CA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 34

​

​

​

​

​

EFFECT

​

AUTHORIZATION:

13,000 affordable housing units.

​

NO FISCAL EFFECT

​

Measure H: College & Career Fund

OUSD Parcel Tax / Pass: 2/3

BACKGROUND

MEASURE N (2014-25) - $120 parcel tax

• Purpose:
• Develop pathways to careers
• Integrate academics with work experience
• Results: increased graduation rates.

​

​

FISCAL EFFECT

​

EXTENDS PARCEL TAX FOR 14 YEARS

• $120 for each real estate parcel.
• Cost-of living adjustment annually, capped @ 5%
• Exemptions for seniors and low income households.
• Annual report and audit.

Measure H: College & Career Fund

Reasons to support

​

• The program has been successful:
• improved academic achievement
• access to careers
• increased graduation rates

​

• Given Prop 13, a parcel tax is one of the only ways to guarantee consistent funding and secure the program.

Reasons to oppose

​

• Funding should come from the OUSD budget now that the approach has proven its effectiveness.

​

Measure Y: Zoo Parcel Tax

Initiative Parcel Tax/Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

​

• Oakland Zoo Annual budget:
• $24 million

​

• Visitors:
• 15% from Oakland;
• 65% from Alameda County (incl Oaklanders)

FISCAL EFFECT

​

• 20-year Parcel Tax of $68 per residential unit

​

• Annual cost of living adjustment. No cap.

​

• $12 million annually

​

​

Measure Y: Zoo Parcel Tax

Reasons to support

​

• Stabilize the Zoo’s finances
• Zoo could increase benefits to Oakland residents and schools.

​

Reasons to oppose

​

• Only 15% of the annual visitors to the Zoo are Oakland residents, yet Oakland property owners would be paying to increase revenue by 50%.

​

• No specific commitments in the measure to Oakland schools or residents.

​

Measure T: Business Tax Rates

​

​

Business Tax Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

​

​

Flat Tax

​

​

​

​

​

EFFECT

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

-Progressive rates: Increasing $ amount per $1000 as receipts increase within each business category.

(No changes to Code re: rental properties or cannabis businesses)

-Flat rate: Same $ cost within each business category per $1000 of gross receipts above a certain level.

Measure T: Business Tax Rates

FISCAL EFFECTS

​

IMPACT ON CITY REVENUES:

• Additional $21-22 million. (Current business tax revenue: $104 million).

​

IMPACT ON BUSINESSES:

• Tax reductions for approximately, 6,000 businesses Tax increases for others.
• Highest grossing businesses would pay significantly more than they pay now.

​

Measure T: Business Tax Rates

Reasons to support

​

• City Council and labor and business communities negotiated this measure.

​

• Increased tax revenue will add needed resources to the General Fund.

Reasons to oppose

​

• Businesses may leave the City or not bring their businesses here.

​

• Rate increases should be introduced gradually.

Measure W: Fair Elections Act

Charter +Ordinance Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

EFFECT

Measure W: Fair Elections Act

FISCAL EFFECTS

​

Estimated costs are three-fold:

• One-time startup costs ($700,000 in FY 2023-24)

• Annual ongoing administrative expenses of four additional staff for the Public Ethics

Commission, plus $350,000 biennially for non-staff costs.

• Biennial funding for Democracy Dollars: $4 million per 2-year budget cycle.

​

Funding from Oakland’s General Fund.

​

Measure W: Fair Elections Act

Reasons to support

​

• Gives all candidates a path to public office.

​

• More transparency makes for more informed voters.

​

Reasons to oppose

• Oakland has more immediate and urgent needs on which to spend General Fund money.
• Candidates may opt out and accept large contributions from individuals and organizations.

Measure S: Noncitizen Voting

Charter Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

​

WHO VOTES IN OAKLAND?

• U.S. citizens.
• 18+ years.

​

WHO DOESN’T VOTE IN OAKLAND?

• Legal permanent residents
• People with work visas
• Undocumented residents
• Over 13,000 noncitizens who have children in Oakland schools

​

WHAT ABOUT SAN FRANCISCO?

EFFECT

​

• Measure S changes the Charter to authorize passing an ordinance.

​

• But noncitizens only gain the vote IF an ordinance is then passed and Registrar of Voters creates registration pathway and ballot procedures.

​

• No budget effect from this authorization.

Measure S: Noncitizen Voting

Reasons to support

​

• Charter change is a necessary first step.

​

• Allowing noncitizens to vote would promote

educational policy that considers the needs of

marginalized communities.

​

• This would encourage wider participation in civic process.

Reasons to oppose

​

• Noncitizens would risk significant

legal consequences if they overstepped

regulations even unintentionally.

​

• Implementation will be difficult and costly.

​

• Oakland should wait until the law is settled and

avoid unnecessary legal challenges and expenses.

Measure X: Government Reforms

Charter and Ordinance Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

EFFECT

Measure X: Government Reforms

FISCAL EFFECTS

​

​

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: $ 858,199

​

​

​

Measure X: Government Reforms

Reasons to support

​

• Measure X will improve City governance and operations and make officials more responsive.

​

• City Auditor requires more staff to manage increasing requests for financial and

performance audits.

​

​

Reasons to oppose

​

• Reform should be comprehensive, not piecemeal.

​

• Bundling disparate reforms together does not give voters the option to vote for particular reforms, but reject others.

​

​

Measure V: Just Cause for Evictions

Ordinance Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

​

Oakland requires just cause to evict

• Fail to pay rent, etc.
• Owner move-in or repairs

​

Law applies to residential units built through 1995

​

​

EFFECTS

New protections:

• Protections for people who live in motorhomes
• During the school year, protections for tenants who have children or are school employees
• Right to reclaim residency
• Month to month after initial term

​

New date for inclusion:

• Built prior to the last 10 years (before 2012)

​

​

​

No significant fiscal effects.

Measure V: Just Cause for Evictions

Reasons to support

​

• Many more tenants will benefit from protections against displacement and eviction.
• Students and school employees will be able to avoid disruption during the school year.
• 10-year exemption for new construction is sufficient to support new construction.

​

Reasons to oppose

​

• Including more recently build units may discourage new construction and so drive up rents.
• Special tenant protections may discourage landlords from renting to the protected groups.

Measure R: Gender-Neutral Language

Pass: 50%+1

BACKGROUND

​

The Oakland City Charter uses gender-specific words to refer to City workers and officials, e.g. “firemen.”

​

The City Charter also uses male and female pronouns like “he” and “she.”

​

​

​

EFFECTS

​

• Replace gender-specific words with gender-neutral words, e.g. “firefighters.”

​

• Use gender-neutral pronouns like “they” rather than gendered pronouns:
• The Mayor shall not be a member of the Council, but they shall have a vote ….

​

• No fiscal effects.

​

​

​

Measure D

BACKGROUND

​

Measure D (2000)

• Development in unincorporated areas of Alameda County
• Changes require a vote by Alameda County residents

​

EFFECTS

​

• Changes in ratios for agricultural buildings and equestrian arenas relative to land area.

​

Measure D

Reasons to support

​

• Allow more space for covered corrals at equestrian facilities as well as performance areas.
• Allow expanded storage areas, processing and retail facilities for wineries, olive presses etc. that serve the public.

​

​

Reasons to oppose

​

• Measure D would enable a handful of big wineries to triple in size while the smallest would not grow.

​

• Weakens Alameda County’s environmental protections

​

Prop 1: Reproductive Freedom

Legislative / Constitution

EFFECT

• CA Constitution recognizes right to choose an abortion or contraception

​

BACKGROUND

• U.S. No federal constitutional right to abortion after Dobbs decision.
• CA
• Constitution: Right to privacy
• Statutes and case law : Right to reproductive freedom (abortion and contraceptives)

Prop 1: Reproductive Freedom

FOR: $3.1M

$$ M. Quinn Delaney

$$ Planned Parenthood Associations

$$ CA Federation of Teachers

$$ ACLU of Northern CA

$$ California Medical Association

$$ CA Teachers Association

$$ Lyft

• League of Women Voters of California
• California Nurses Association
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy

​

AGAINST: 0

​

Dr. Anne Marie Adams, Gynecologist

Tak Allen, President, International Faith Based Coalition

Assemblymember Jim Patterson

​

No on 1 Committee

CA Alliance of Pregnancy Care

Pacific Justice Institute

Republican Party of America

CA Conference of Catholic Bishops

Prop 1: Reproductive Freedom

Reasons to support

​

• Reproductive freedom is a fundamental right.

​

• Reproductive medical decisions belong with individuals & their health care providers.

Reasons to oppose

​

• Women already have the right to choose under current CA law.

​

• The law is vague and might open the door to expanded use of late term abortions.

Prop 26: Allows In-person Roulette,

Dice & Sports Betting

Initiative / Constitution & Law

BACKGROUND

​

Gambling in California is limited to

• State lottery
• Cardrooms (regulated locally)
• Horse race betting
• Tribal casinos (regulated by compact)

EFFECT

​

Expanded legal in-person gambling

• At tribal casinos:
• Sports betting, roulette and dice
• At four private race tracks:
• Sports betting

Prop 26: Allows In-person Roulette,

Dice & Sports Betting

BUDGET EFFECTS

Increased state revenues ~ tens of millions of dollars annually estimated

​

Increased regulatory and enforcement costs - possibly low tens of millions of dollars estimated

​

Uncertainty:

• New compacts
• Effects on urban card room revenues
• #s of people who will respond
• Interaction with fate of Prop 27

Prop 26: Allows In-person Roulette,

Dice & Sports Betting

FOR: $109M

​

$$$ 5 CA Tribal Groups

Barona Band of Mission Indians

American Indian Chamber of Commerce

Federated Indians, Graton Rancheria

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

​

54 More CA. Tribal Groups

3 Unions

17 other organizations

​

​

​

​

​

AGAINST: $42M

​

$$$ Non-Tribal Card Rooms

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles

California Black Chamber of Commerce

National Veterans Foundation

California Senior Advocates League

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 36 Management Chapter

​

​

3 CA Tribes

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Prop 26: Allows In-person Roulette,

Dice & Sports Betting

Reasons to support

​

• Help Indian tribes provide vital services to their members.

​

• Casinos benefit the state of California by generating revenue that supports state programs and jobs.

​

Reasons to oppose

​

• Sponsored will use the new enforcement provisions to close local card rooms and reduce local revenues.

​

• Expands gambling at horse racing tracks to save the racing industry that injures horses.

​

Prop 27: Allows Online Sports Betting

Initiative / Constitution & Law

BACKGROUND

​

Online sports betting is not allowed today.

EFFECT

​

• Legalize online sports betting + some betting on non-athletic events.
• No betting on youth sports or elections.
• Indian tribes and large gambling companies to run it

​

Prop 27: Allows Online Sports Betting

BUDGET EFFECTS

​

Increased state revenues ~ hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

​

To pay for state regulatory costs first, then

85% - programs - homelessness, mental health and addiction

15% - tribes not involved in online sports betting.

Prop 27: Allows Online Sports Betting

FOR: $169M

​

$$$ 7 National Online Gaming Corps

San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness

Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California

Local Initiatives Support Corporation

Gloria Baxter, mental health nonprofit leader

Big Valley of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria

Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe

Major League Baseball

Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness

Bay Area Community Services

5 Mayors of CA cities: Oakland, Sacramento,Fresno

​

​

​

​

​

AGAINST: $200M as of Sept 13

​

$$$ 5 CA Tribal Groups

Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations

Ione Band of Miwok Indians

Salvation Army of San Bernardino

California Nations Indian Gaming Association

Alpha Project for the Homeless

Blue Lake Rancheria California

League of California Cities

California Democratic Party

California Republican Party

California Teacher Associatio

Prop 27: Allows Online Sports Betting

Reasons to support

​

• $$ - homelessness, mental health and addiction.

​

• May be more advantageous to smaller Indian tribes.

Reasons to oppose

​

• Benefits large gaming companies; blocks smaller operations.

​

• Makes gambling more accessible.

Prop 28: More $ for Arts and

Music in Schools

Initiative / Law

BACKGROUND

• The state is required to spend ~40% on K-14 education every year.
• No guaranteed funding for arts and music education in K-12 public schools.

EFFECT

Additional funding for arts and music education ~ 1% of school funding.

FISCAL EFFECT Increase State expenditures by about $1 billion per year.

Prop 28: More $ for Arts and

Music in Schools

FOR: $9M

$$$ Austin Beutner

$$$ Steven A. Ballmer

$$$ Fender Musical Instruments Corp

$$$ Monica Rosenthal

$$ Comcast and NBC

• Californians for Arts and Music in Public Schools
• California Teachers Association
• California State PTA
• U.S. Secretary of Education
• LA Unified School District

​

​

​

​

​

AGAINST: 0

​

​

Prop 28: More $ for Arts and

Music in Schools

Reasons to support

​

• Improve students’ personal & academic life.

​

• Only one in five schools has a dedicated teacher for arts programs.

Reasons to oppose

​

• Earmarking funds at state level is bad fiscal policy because enrollment and needs change.

​

• Limits CA’s flexibility to spend general fund money for highest needs.

Prop 29: More Regulations for Kidney Dialysis Clinics

Initiative / Law

BACKGROUND

​

• Similar propositions - Prop 8 in 2018 and Prop 23 in 2020 - did not pass.
• DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care operate almost 3/4 of the dialysis clinics.
• Federal regulations:
• Personal doctor visits 1X/month
• Medical direction ¼ time/clinic
• Reporting of infection rates.

EFFECT

​

• Healthcare provider to be present (*or telehealth) during treatment hours.
• Report dialysis-related infections.
• *Disclose who owns the clinic.
• Permission to close or reduce services
• Treat regardless of payment type

Prop 29: More Regulations for Kidney Dialysis Clinics

BUDGET EFFECTS

​

• Cost to Clinics ~ Hundreds of thousands of dollars more for staff salaries.
• State and local governments ~ tens of millions of dollars more
• Clinics close & patients go to emergency rooms.
• Clinics negotiate higher reimbursement rates.

Prop 29: More Regulations for Kidney Dialysis Clinics

FOR: $8M

​

SEIU Health Workers Union

​

CA Democratic Party

AGAINST: $86M

​

Dialysis Providers:

$$$ DaVita, Inc.

$$$ Fresenius Medical

​

CA Republican Party

CA Chamber of Commerce

CA Medical Association

Prop 29: More Regulations for Kidney Dialysis Clinics

Reasons to support

​

​

• Healthcare provider available for procedures.

​

• Prevent financial discrimination.

Reasons to oppose

​

• Increased costs —-> dialysis clinics closing.
• Administrative oversight is unnecessary.

​

Prop 30: Tax on Millionaires for more Electric Cars

Initiative / Law

BACKGROUND

• Zero Emission MANDATES
• 2026: 35 %
• 2030: 90 %
• 2035: 100%

​

• CA BUDGET (from Gen’l Fund)
• $10 billion over 6 years

​

• TAX (over $1.25 million) 12.5 %

​

​

​

EFFECT

​

• COST SHIFTING

​

• TAX INCREASE
• 12.5% =>15.05% above $2 million

​

​

Prop 30: Tax on Millionaires for more Electric Cars

BUDGET EFFECTS

• Increase income tax rate on individual incomes above $2 million
• Rate of 12.5% ==> 15.05%
• Revenue $3-4.5 billion
• 45% zero-emission vehicle subsidies
• 35% zero-emission vehicle infrastructure
• 20 % wildfire suppression and prevention programs

Prop 30: Tax on Millionaires for more Electric Cars

FOR: $27M

$$$ Lyft (>$15 million)

$$ Zinc Collective

$ CA Assoc Electrical Workers

$ Elect Climate Champions

$ Thomas Steyer

Coalition for Clean Air

California Environmental Voters

Natural Resources Defense Council

Union of Concerned Scientists

California State Firefighters

American Lung Association

​

​

AGAINST: $10M as of Sept 13

​

$$$ Mark Heising

$$$ Michael Moritz

$$ Sierra Pacific Industries

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

California Small Business Association

United Latinos Action

California Teachers Association

Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ret.

Governor Newsom

CA Republican Party

Chamber of Commerce

​

​

Prop 30: Tax on Millionaires for more Electric Cars

Reasons to support

​

• Helps CA meet climate goals and fight wildfires.
• Make ZEVs more affordable.

Reasons to oppose

​

• CA has already budgeted big money to ZEVs and to wildfire suppression and prevention

​

• High earners may leave the state.

Prop 31: Ban flavored tobacco products

Referendum

BACKGROUND

​

• 2020 LAW CHALLENGED

​

• ISSUE: sale of flavored tobacco products in stores and vending machines.

​

​

​

​

EFFECT

​

YES VOTE: Law will go into effect

​

FISCAL EFFECT

REDUCED REVENUES:

Tens of $millions to $100 million

​

​

Prop 31: Ban flavored tobacco products

FOR: $6M

$$$ Michael R. Bloomberg

$$$ Kaiser Foundation Health Plan

$$ American Heart Association

$ Healthy California

$ Jerry Hill for Assembly 2024

American Academy of Pediatrics, California

American Heart Association

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

California Hawaii State Conference NAACP

California Medical Association

Governor Gavin Newsom

​

​

​

AGAINST: $22M

$$$ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

$$$ Philip Morris USA,

$$ ITG Brands (Tobacco)

$$ Swedish Match N Am. (Nicotine)

Ca Republican Party

Michael Genest, former Director, California Department of Finance

California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

California Taxpayer Protection Committee

Yasha Nitkin, California Police Officer

Central Valley Business Federation

CalAsian Chamber of Commerce

​

​

​

Prop 31: Ban flavored tobacco products

Reasons to support

​

• Four out of five kids who have used tobacco started with a flavored product.

​

• Many e-cigarette users say they use e-cigarettes for the flavors.

​

Reasons to oppose

​

• Total prohibition is not necessary to keep tobacco from youth.

​

• Ban may lead to more smuggling & crime.

League website - Pros & Cons

Thank you

for being a voter!

• Your one stop voting resource: lwvoakland.org
• See Your Ballot: Candidates, measures & polling places: votersedge.org
• Support democracy - Join the League - lwvoakland.org/membership

​