Broken Promises: Oakland's Parcel-Tax Record and the June 2026 Vote on Measure E

A POLICY ANALYSIS PREPARED APRIL 2026

Oakland sunset over the bay — sun setting behind the hills, with sun reflection on the water.

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA · FISCAL POLICY

Broken Promises

Oakland keeps asking voters for new parcel taxes — and keeps failing to deliver what those taxes promised. What voters should weigh in deciding Measure E (June 2026).

A REPORT FOR OAKLAND VOTERSApril 2026 · Independent analysis

CONTENTS

What's inside this report

SECTION 1 Executive summary & key findings 4

A parcel-tax stack that has grown 6× faster than inflation, broken promises in three of the last four measures, and a regressive, geographically uneven burden.

SECTION 2 The highest taxes per capita 7

Oakland collects among the highest taxes per capita in California. An inventory of the seven-to-ten overlapping parcel taxes on a typical homeowner's annual bill, and where the money has gone.

SECTION 3 Broken promises 10

Failure to meet voter-mandated minimums in 7 of 21 measures — and the continuous use of “extreme fiscal necessity” declarations to bypass them.

SECTION 4 The fire-station playbook 13

Two decades of using fire-service threats to drive new tax approvals — and the pattern of mismanaged funds that follows.

SECTION 5 Shrinkflation: paying more, getting less 16

Spending nearly doubled in 20 years. Workforce shrank. Sworn officers fell 19%. Where the money went: personnel costs.

SECTION 6 Who actually pays 19

Flat-rate parcel taxes hit deep East Oakland homes 48% harder than Rockridge homes — measured as a share of median home value.

SECTION 7 Renters pay too 22

Only 35% of Oakland's rental housing is fully rent-controlled. Federal Reserve research finds landlords pass $0.50–$0.89 of every $1 in property-tax increases through to new tenants.

SECTION 8 Measure E (June 2026) — voter guide 25

A Pro/Con summary of the $34M/year parcel tax, plus five questions every Oakland voter should ask before voting.

REFERENCES Endnotes & sources 29

SECTION 1

Executive summary

Oakland's parcel-tax revenue has grown 6× faster than inflation over twenty years. Yet the city has failed to keep the staffing and service promises made in three of the last four parcel-tax measures. Voters now face Measure E — a proposal to add yet another flat-rate parcel tax on top of the existing stack.

What the data shows

The City of Oakland charges some of the highest taxes per capita in California compared to similar cities.¹ Yet according to the city's own financial reports and audits, basic public-safety outcomes have not improved — and in several cases have measurably declined.²

A typical Oakland homeowner now pays between seven and ten overlapping parcel taxes in addition to the baseline 1% ad valorem property tax established by California's Proposition 13.³ Voter-approved special-tax revenue has surged 379% over the past 20 years — from $31.7 million in 2006 to $152.1 million in 2025 — more than six times the cumulative increase in the Consumer Price Index over the same period.⁴⁵

Despite this dramatic increase in tax revenue, the city's own reports show that it has failed to meet the staffing or service-level requirements promised to voters in three of the last four parcel-tax measures.⁶ Total city spending nearly doubled over the past 20 years to $1.69 billion in fiscal year 2025, while the city's measured service outcomes have stagnated or declined.⁷

Six findings at a glance

Voter-approved special tax revenue has grown 6× faster than inflation.

From $31.7M in 2006 to $152.1M in 2025 — a 379% increase, against a 58% cumulative CPI increase over the same period. Oakland now collects among the highest taxes per capita in the state.⁴⁵

The city has failed to meet voter-mandated minimums in three of the last four parcel-tax measures.

A February 2026 report by the City Administrator examined 21 voter-approved measures and acknowledged failure to meet minimum staffing or service requirements in seven of them — including Measures NN (2024), C (2022), and Q (2020).⁶

“Extreme fiscal necessity” has been used continuously to evade those minimums.

The city has continuously declared a state of “extreme fiscal necessity” to bypass voter-mandated minimums while continuing to collect the tax revenue — in some cases while simultaneously declaring a multimillion-dollar surplus.⁸⁹

City spending has nearly doubled while measurable service outputs have not.

Total spending: +95% in 20 years. City workforce: –4%. Sworn police officers: –19% from 2008 peak. Authorized new dwelling units: –71% since 2016. 9-1-1 response times have failed state standards for over a decade.⁷¹⁰

Flat-rate parcel taxes hit deep East Oakland homes 48% harder than Rockridge.

Effective parcel-tax burden as a share of median home value ranges from 1.50% in the affluent, majority-white 94618 zip code (Rockridge) to 2.22% in the predominantly Black and Hispanic 94621 zip code (Elmhurst).¹¹¹²

Parcel taxes are substantially passed through to renters.

Only 35% of Oakland's rental housing is fully covered by local rent control. A 2025 Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia study using comprehensive data from neighboring Berkeley found landlords pass through $0.50 to $0.89 of every $1 in property-tax increases to new tenants.¹³¹⁴

After years of cumulative tax increases, Oakland now collects some of the highest taxes per capita in California compared to similar cities. Yet basic-service outcomes — emergency response times, sworn officers on duty, housing units authorized — have stagnated or declined.

SPUR · City Auditor reports · Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, 2006–2025

The bottom line for voters. The question on the June 2026 ballot is not whether new revenue is needed. The City of Oakland's own five-year financial forecast projects $115–$130 million annual structural deficits through 2030, driven primarily by pension and personnel obligations that no parcel tax can solve.¹⁵ The question is whether layering another flat-rate parcel tax on an already heavy stack — in a city where 70% of residents already say their taxes aren't worth what they receive in return¹⁶ — addresses the underlying fiscal problem or merely compounds it.

SECTION 2

The highest taxes per capita

Oakland now collects more in voter-approved special taxes per resident than nearly any peer city in California. Seven to ten overlapping parcel taxes sit on top of every homeowner's annual property-tax bill — and most of them escalate annually for inflation.

An anatomy of a typical Oakland tax bill

A median-priced Oakland single-family home assessed at $650,000 is subject to roughly 33 different property-tax line items totaling about $10,254 per year — 1.58% of assessed value, well above the 1% Proposition 13 baseline, and more than 10% of area median household income.¹⁷

California's Proposition 13 (1978) capped the ad valorem property tax at 1% of assessed value and made base-rate increases politically and legally difficult. To make up the gap, California cities and school districts — including Oakland — have leaned heavily on parcel taxes for the last four decades. Parcel taxes are technically permitted as “special taxes,” and normally require a two-thirds supermajority of voters to pass.¹⁸

The result in Oakland is what amounts to a layered fiscal architecture. Each measure was approved separately, with its own promise about what the money would do. The cumulative effect is largely invisible on any individual ballot.

The current stack at a glance

Measure (Year)	Purpose	Single-family rate	Notes
NN (2024)	City public safety — 60% police, 40% violence prevention	$198 + 10% parking surcharge	9-year tax projected at $47.4M/year. 700-officer minimum suspended via “extreme fiscal necessity” declaration.¹⁹
E (proposed 2026)	City public safety / 911 / cleanliness	$192	In addition to, not replacing, NN. ~$34M/year for 9 years. No minimum staffing or service requirements.²⁰
G (2008)	OUSD operations	$195	Oakland Unified School District tax.
G1 (2016)	OUSD teacher retention	$120	Oakland Unified School District tax.
H (2022)	OUSD college / career readiness	$120	Oakland Unified School District tax.
C (2022)	City library services	$114.50 (initial); ~$130+ today	30 years, with annual inflation adjustment. City failed minimum General Fund support in year one.²¹
D (2018)	City library services	$75 initial; >$103 in FY 2025–26	20-year tax. Requires $13M+ General Fund match.²²
Q (2020)	Parks, homelessness, litter, stormwater	$148 initial; ~$189 in FY 2025–26	20-year tax. Parks-maintenance requirement suspended via “extreme fiscal necessity”; ~$22M unspent by June 2023.²³
AA (2018)	Children's programs / Oakland Promise	$198 initial; >$262 today	30-year tax. Approval threshold litigated for years.²⁴
MM (2024)	Wildfire prevention (defined zone only)	$99	Annual escalation up to 5%. Applies only inside the Wildfire Prevention Zone.
N (1997)	Paramedic / EMS services	$7.18 initial, inflation-adjusted	Per-parcel charge. Audits flagged a growing unspent balance ($2.1M by 2011).²⁵

Line chart showing Oakland's special-tax revenue has grown 6 times faster than inflation since 2006. — **Figure 1.** Voter-approved special-tax revenue grew from $31.7M (FY 2006) to $152.1M (FY 2025), a 379% increase. Source: City of Oakland Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports.⁵

This 379% growth understates the total picture. The line above includes only City of Oakland special taxes. It does not include the parallel growth in Oakland Unified School District parcel taxes, county taxes, or regional district assessments — all of which are also charged to Oakland property owners on the same bill.²⁶

SECTION 3

Broken promises

According to the City of Oakland's own February 2026 report, the city has failed to meet voter-mandated minimums in seven of twenty-one measures examined — including three of the last four parcel taxes.

The city's own admission

On February 10, 2026, City Administrator Jestin D. Johnson released a report titled “Multi-year plan to meet voter-mandated staffing and service levels.” The report examined twenty-one voter-approved tax measures and legal agreements and concluded that the city has failed to meet minimum requirements in seven of them — including three of the last four parcel-tax measures.⁶

Notably, voters had already approved taxes meant to fund those minimum requirements. The administrator's report estimated that fully meeting all voter-mandated staffing and service requirements would require $38.8 million per year in new ongoing revenue — almost exactly the amount the proposed Measure E parcel tax aims to raise.⁶²⁰

Three measures, three broken promises

Measure NN (2024) — the 700-officer minimum, suspended.

Sold to voters with a promise to maintain at least 700 sworn police officers and 480 firefighters. The city was already below those minimums when voters approved the measure with over 70% support, and the city council quickly invoked “extreme fiscal necessity” to bypass the staffing requirement and continue collecting the tax. As of FY 2025, there were approximately 618 sworn officers, only about 500 of whom were on active duty.¹⁹

Measure C (2022) — the General Fund match, missed in year one.

In year one of this 30-year library parcel tax, the city fell short of the minimum General Fund support required to legally collect the tax. The city council quickly declared a “Severe and Unanticipated Financial Event” to bypass that requirement. The city also mistakenly collected $112,000 from 300 owners who were exempt.²¹

Measure Q (2020) — the parks-maintenance promise, voided.

The city council declared an “extreme fiscal necessity” in June 2023 to suspend the parks-maintenance requirement promised to voters. By that date the measure had nearly $22 million unspent, and homelessness carry-forward funds exceeded allowable amounts — a finding documented in detail by the Oakland City Auditor.²³

The city has used continuous declarations of “extreme fiscal necessity” to evade voter-mandated minimums while continuing to collect the tax revenue — in some cases while simultaneously declaring multimillion-dollar surpluses.

City Administrator's Multi-Year Plan, Feb. 10, 2026 · City Auditor reports

The "extreme fiscal necessity" mechanism, by the numbers

~2 yrs

continuous declaration of “extreme fiscal necessity” used to bypass NN's officer minimum

$73.6M

budgetary surplus reported on Feb. 10, 2026 — in the same report arguing for continued “extreme fiscal necessity”

$38.8M

per year the city says it needs to meet all voter-mandated minimums — almost exactly Measure E's revenue target

7 of 21

measures the city itself acknowledges are out of compliance with their voter-approved requirements

SECTION 4

The fire-station playbook

Two decades of using fire-service threats to drive voter approval of new taxes — followed by mismanaged funds, broken promises, and the same pitch the next cycle.

A four-step pattern, repeated for twenty years

A review of city financial statements, audits, court rulings and ballot history reveals a recurring four-step political pattern in which fire-service cuts are used to motivate voter approval of new tax measures.²⁷

Announce that cuts to fire services are necessary to close budget deficits.

Convince voters to approve a tax by promising to “save” and “maintain” fire services.

Mismanage or divert the tax revenues, leading to new deficits and announcements of fire cuts.

Use the threat of fire-station closures to drive approval of the next tax measure.

Two decades of measures and outcomes

Measure Y (2004). Promised at least 802 sworn officers and $4M/year for fire services. The city diverted Measure Y money to other purposes; an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled in April 2009 that the diversion was illegal, and the city admitted $11–12 million had been improperly spent.²⁸ From 2004 to mid-2010 the city failed to meet the 803-officer minimum except for a brief six-month window, while collecting more than $100 million in Measure Y taxes.²⁸

Measure BB (2010). After laying off 80 officers in July 2010 and dropping below the Measure Y threshold that legally barred tax collection, the city placed Measure BB on the ballot — not to restore officers, but to erase the minimum-staffing requirement entirely. The Oakland Tribune editorial board urged a no vote, writing that BB would “abolish Measure Y minimum-staffing requirements altogether yet allow the city to continue collecting some $20 million a year.” Voters approved it.²⁹

Measure Z (2014). Renewal campaign warned of severe fire cuts; passed by two-thirds majority. Earmarked only $2M/year for fire — half of Measure Y's allocation — despite a higher overall revenue base.³⁰

Measure NN (2024). Passed with over 70% support on the promise of a 700-officer minimum and 480-firefighter minimum. The city was already below both thresholds when voters approved it, and quickly declared “extreme fiscal necessity” to bypass them while continuing to collect the tax.¹⁹

Measure E (proposed, 2026). Same playbook, fewer safeguards: the lead signatory of the official argument in favor is the firefighters' union president, and the opening pitch asks voters to “save our essential services” and “keep fire stations open.” The new tax would be in addition to, not replacing Measure NN, and contains no minimum public-safety staffing or service-level requirements.²⁰³¹

In every major Oakland budget cycle for two decades, the threat of fire-station closures has been one of the city's most reliable tools for motivating voter tax approval — even after the city repeatedly broke promises that past tax measures would prevent such closures.

CBS News · Oaklandside · Oakland City Auditor reports

An example: January 2025

In January 2025, the city closed two fire stations and proposed closing a total of seven — representing roughly 30% of Oakland Fire Department capacity — after the hoped-for sale of the Oakland Coliseum was delayed and $60 million the city council had prematurely budgeted from the sale failed to materialize. The firefighters' union held press conferences warning of life-threatening response-time delays. After intense public pressure, the council found money to reverse some closures.³²

SECTION 5

Shrinkflation

Total spending nearly doubled in twenty years. The workforce shrank by 4%. Sworn officers fell 19% from peak. Where did the money go?

Paying more, getting less

The city's data shows almost no long-term improvement in basic-service outcomes — even as spending and tax revenue climbed.

Line chart: spending nearly doubled while city workforce and police staffing did not. — **Figure 2.** Indexed comparison: total city spending grew 95% from 2006 to 2025, while the full-time-equivalent workforce fell 4% and sworn police officers fell 19% from their 2008 peak. Source: City of Oakland Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports.⁷

What did and did not change, 2006–2025

Total spending: +95%, from $0.87B to $1.69B.⁷
Voter-approved special tax revenue: +379%, from $31.7M to $152.1M.⁵
City full-time-equivalent workforce: –4%, from 3,614 to 3,487.⁷
Sworn police officers: –19%, from a peak of 837 in 2008 to 678 in 2025 — below the 700-officer minimum promised under Measure NN.⁷¹⁹
Physical arrests: –57%, from 14,908 in 2007 to 6,338 in 2025.⁷
9-1-1 response times: Among the worst in California for over a decade; have failed state standards.¹⁰
Authorized new dwelling units: –71%, from 1,641 in 2016 to 472 in 2025.⁷

Where the money went

In 2023, the average total compensation (salary plus benefits) for a full-time City of Oakland employee was $237,000 — a 79% increase over 10 years, and more than twice the median Oakland household income of approximately $102,000.³³³⁴

$237K

average total compensation (salary + benefits) for a full-time Oakland city employee, 2023

+79%

growth in that figure over 10 years — far above peer cities like Sacramento (+57%), Long Beach (+70%) and San Francisco (+50%)

$1.85B

net pension liability as of FY 2023 — growing each year regardless of new tax revenue

Oakland's relative compensation premium is driven not by base salary — which is roughly comparable to peer cities — but by benefits worth 72% on top of base pay, compared with 41% in Long Beach, 31% in Sacramento, and 33% in San Francisco.³⁵

Annual pension benefit payments alone grew from $362 million in 2016 to $477 million in 2025 — a 32% increase in nine years.⁷ The city's own five-year forecast projects $115–$130 million annual structural deficits through the end of the decade.¹⁵

No amount of new parcel-tax revenue can resolve a gap this large. The structural deficit is the mathematical consequence of a compensation structure that has outpaced the city's revenue base, the cost of living, peer cities, and the incomes of the residents who fund it.

Oakland Five-Year Financial Forecast (June 2025) · Transparent California · ACFR FY 2025

SECTION 6

Who actually pays

A flat-rate parcel tax is not the same as a flat impact. Geographic data show the burden falls hardest on the East Oakland homeowners least able to absorb it — precisely the residents the city has elsewhere committed to protect.

Geographic disparity: a 48% gap

Because parcel taxes are flat dollar amounts that ignore property value, the same $192 hits a $400,000 home harder than a $1.6 million home. Property data show the effective parcel-tax burden varies dramatically by zip code.¹¹

**Figure 3.** Total parcel-tax burden as a percentage of median home value, by Oakland zip code. The lowest-burden zip code (94618, Rockridge) sits at 1.50%; the highest (94621, Elmhurst, in deep East Oakland) sits at 2.22% — a 48% effective-rate gap. Source: ATTOM Data property values; City of Oakland tax rates.¹¹¹²

Bar chart showing parcel-tax burden as percentage of median home value by Oakland zip code. — **Figure 3.** Total parcel-tax burden as a percentage of median home value, by Oakland zip code. The lowest-burden zip code (94618, Rockridge) sits at 1.50%; the highest (94621, Elmhurst, in deep East Oakland) sits at 2.22% — a 48% effective-rate gap. Source: ATTOM Data property values; City of Oakland tax rates.¹¹¹²

Over the 20-year life of the proposed Measure E tax, a typical deep East Oakland homeowner would pay over three times the share of their housing wealth compared with a typical Rockridge homeowner, for the same citywide public-safety services. The cumulative $3,840 in parcel-tax payments (before inflation escalators) would equal 0.24% of a Rockridge home's value but 0.81% of a deep East Oakland home's value.¹¹

Why this pattern matters

Empirical studies from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and Brookings have documented that flat-rate property assessments produce a disparate racial impact even where the tax is nominally neutral, because of cumulative differences in assessed values, homeownership rates, and effective rates.³⁶³⁷

In Oakland, this pattern coincides with a documented historical legacy. The 1937 Home Owners' Loan Corporation residential security map graded West Oakland, Fruitvale and the East Oakland flatlands “red” or “yellow” — denying federally insured mortgages to non-white families funneled into those neighborhoods by restrictive covenants and racially zoned subdivision ordinances, a de jure segregation documented at length in Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law.³⁸ A flat parcel tax is not racially discriminatory in itself, and correlation does not affirm causation. The data nevertheless show that the same neighborhoods once shaded red on those maps now sit at the top of the parcel-tax-burden curve.¹¹

Black households in Oakland today have the highest mortgage denial rates of any racial group; a 2018 analysis found that Black households in San Francisco–Oakland could afford only 5% of available home listings — the lowest share of any major U.S. metropolitan area.³⁹⁴⁰ Oakland's Black population has declined by 33% since 2000, even as it rose nationally.⁴¹

SECTION 7

Renters pay too

A common defense of parcel taxes is that they fall on landlords, not renters, because of Oakland's rent control. The data show this protection covers a much smaller slice of the rental market than most people realize — and in the long run, parcel taxes pass through almost entirely.

The rent-control myth

Most discussion of who pays a parcel tax assumes the cost falls on property owners. For roughly 58% of Oaklanders — the majority who rent — that assumption is wrong, both in the short run and especially over time.

35%

of Oakland's 104,144 rental units are subject to local rent-control limits¹⁴

$0.50–$0.89

of every $1 of property-tax increase that landlords pass through to new tenants, per a 2025 Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia study¹³

~58%

of Oakland households rent — meaning the majority of residents bear the pass-through effect

The two-thirds of Oakland's rental market that is not fully covered by local rent control is subject only to California's AB 1482 statewide cap (5% plus inflation, or 10%, whichever is lower). Within that cap, landlords can raise rents to recover any cost increase, including parcel taxes.

Three mechanisms that erode rent control over time

Vacancy decontrol. Under California's Costa-Hawkins Act, when a tenant moves out the landlord can reset the rent to whatever the market will bear. Each turnover effectively resets the building's rent to a level that incorporates accumulated tax increases.⁴²

Fair-return petitions. Landlords who can show that the local rent cap doesn't allow a reasonable profit can petition the Rent Board for a larger increase, with property taxes counted as a recoverable operating expense.¹⁴

Capital improvement pass-throughs. Landlords can petition to pass up to 70% of building improvement costs through to tenants. While not a direct tax pass-through, this is a related rent-increase mechanism that operates alongside cost recovery.¹⁴

The empirical evidence on pass-through

A 2020 U.S. Census Bureau study examining small multifamily buildings (1–5 units) found a short-term pass-through rate of roughly 14% — confirming measurable upward rent effects even for small tax changes.⁴³ A German market study covering decades of property-tax data found that real rents fully absorbed property-tax increases within approximately three years, meaning long-term pass-through approaches 100% in supply-constrained markets like Oakland.⁴⁴

Stacked across all per-unit multi-family parcel taxes, a small-building Oakland tenant can absorb $250–$400 per year in pass-through parcel tax alone — and because parcel taxes are per unit rather than scaled to value, tenants in small, older buildings (typical of historically redlined neighborhoods such as West Oakland and Fruitvale) absorb a higher per-dollar-of-rent tax burden than tenants in new luxury towers near downtown.¹¹

The protection rent control offers against parcel-tax pass-through is real for the 35% of units it covers — but partial for those, and almost nonexistent for the remaining 65% of Oakland's rental market. Over the nine-year life of Measure E, an Oakland renter outside rent control can expect to absorb most of the new tax through future rent increases.

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (2025) · U.S. Census Bureau (2020) · CESifo (2021)

SECTION 8

Measure E (June 2026)

A new $192-per-parcel tax raising $34 million per year for nine years — in addition to, not replacing, the Measure NN tax voters approved in 2024.

Anatomy of the ballot question

Measure E would create a new City of Oakland parcel tax of $192 per single-family parcel and $131 per multi-family unit per year, raising approximately $34 million annually for nine years. The official ballot text says it would prevent longer 911 response times, keep fire stations open, prevent cuts to fire protection and police patrols, and address homelessness, dumping and litter.²⁰

Crucially, Measure E would be in addition to, not replacing, the Measure NN parcel tax voters approved less than two years earlier in 2024. There is no enforceable minimum number of officers, firefighters, or other public-safety personnel attached to the measure, and outside the political promise in the ballot title, the spending discretion is largely unconstrained.²⁰

How it qualified for the ballot

Measure E qualified through a paid signature-gathering campaign sponsored by Oakland's public-employee unions and submitted as a “citizen-sponsored” initiative. Under California law, a special tax placed on the ballot by a city council requires two-thirds (66.67%) voter approval; a citizen-sponsored initiative needs only a simple majority (50% plus one).⁴⁵

Per California Form 460 campaign-finance disclosures filed February 2, 2026:⁴⁶

SEIU Local 1021: $200,000
IAFF Local 55 (firefighters' union): $150,000
IFPTE Local 21: $50,500
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E): $50,000
Total contributions to the campaign: over $400,000

Where the money would go

Donut chart: 44% of Measure E revenue would fund triggered union pay raises. — **Figure 4.** Memoranda of understanding the city council approved in September 2025 promise up to $14.9 million per year in “triggered” union pay raises if the city ends the fiscal year with a budget surplus — about 44% of the $34M Measure E would raise.⁴⁷⁴⁸

Combined with $10.2 million in up-front cash bonuses awarded in those same contracts, the deals will consume roughly 75% of the new tax in year one. The raises continue every year and would total roughly $134 million over the nine-year life of the tax.⁴⁷

The contractual trigger is based on a city-produced forecast at the third quarter of the fiscal year — before the year is even completed. Even if the parcel tax were to fail in June and final year-end financials were to show a deficit, it would be too late to rescind the pay raises.⁴⁹

OAKLAND VOTER GUIDE · JUNE 2, 2026 ELECTION

Measure E — at a glance

A new City of Oakland parcel tax for public safety, fire, 911, homelessness & cleanliness

$192 per single-family home · $131 per rental unit · ~$34M / year for 9 years

7–10

overlapping parcel taxes already on a typical Oakland home

+379%

growth in voter-approved special-tax revenue, 2006–2025

3 of 4

recent parcel-tax promises broken, per the city itself

44%

of Measure E revenue committed to “triggered” union pay raises

70%

of Oaklanders surveyed say their taxes aren't worth it

REASONS TO VOTE YES

Promised services. Funds 911 dispatch, fire stations, police patrols, crime prevention, homelessness response, dumping & litter cleanup.
Lower-income protection. Includes exemptions for qualifying low-income households and seniors.
Lower per-rental rate. The $131/unit rental rate is lower than the $192 single-family rate.
Rent control. Oakland's rent-stabilization ordinance limits direct, immediate pass-through to tenants of rent-controlled units.
Oversight built in. The measure includes public disclosure, citizen oversight and independent audits.
Cuts coming? Without new revenue, the city says reductions to basic services will be necessary.
Prop 13 context. Proponents argue Prop 13 (1978) capped base property-tax revenue, justifying parcel taxes to make up the gap.
Past support. Oakland voters have routinely approved similar parcel-tax measures.

REASONS TO VOTE NO

It adds, doesn't replace. Measure E is on top of Measure NN (2024) — already a 7-to-10-layer parcel-tax stack.
$14.9M for union raises. 44% of revenue is contractually committed to “triggered” union pay raises (Sept. 2025 MOUs).
No staffing minimums. Unlike Measure NN, Measure E does not require a minimum number of officers, firefighters, or other public-safety personnel.
No binding spending limits. Outside the political promise in the ballot title, oversight is essentially advisory.
Broken promises. The city's own Feb. 2026 administrator's report admits failure to meet voter-mandated minimums in 3 of the last 4 parcel taxes.
“Extreme fiscal necessity” loophole. The city has continuously declared “extreme fiscal necessity” to bypass voter-mandated minimums while still collecting the tax.
Hits East Oakland 48% harder. Flat-rate parcel taxes are regressive; deep East Oakland homes pay up to 48% more as a share of value than Rockridge homes.
Renters pay too. Only 35% of Oakland's rentals are fully rent-controlled; Federal Reserve research finds $0.50–$0.89 of every $1 in tax hikes is passed to new tenants.
Trust deficit. 70% of all residents — 75% of Black residents — say their taxes already aren't worth it.
Won't fix the gap. Oakland's own 5-year forecast projects $100M+ structural deficits through 2030, driven by pension/personnel costs no parcel tax can solve.

FIVE QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF BEFORE VOTING

1. Am I satisfied with how the city has used the parcel taxes I already pay?

2. Did the city keep the staffing and service promises in Measures NN, C, and Q?

3. What stops the city from declaring “extreme fiscal necessity” again to bypass Measure E?

4. How does a flat $192/$131 charge compare with my income, my home value, and my rent?

5. Will Measure E expand services, or mainly fund pre-negotiated compensation increases?

REFERENCES

Endnotes & sources

All factual claims in this report are drawn from primary source documents: the City of Oakland's annual financial reports, City Auditor reports, the City Administrator's February 2026 multi-year compliance plan, Ballotpedia entries on each measure, California campaign-finance disclosures (Form 460), U.S. Census data, and peer-reviewed and government economic studies. Reporting and analysis by Oakland Report (Oct. 2025–Apr. 2026) was used to identify, organize and corroborate the underlying source documents.

Neditch, Nicole et al. “Balancing Oakland's Budget: Nine Recommendations for Closing the City's Structural Deficit.” San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), May 2025, p. 17. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/SPUR_Oakland_Budget.pdf
Office of the City Auditor (Houston, Michael). “Inadequate 9-1-1 Staffing and Outdated Beat Boundaries Lead to Slow and Inequitable Police Emergency Response Times.” City of Oakland, Oct. 10, 2025.
Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland taxes hit deep East Oakland's homes up to 48% harder than Rockridge's.” Oakland Report, Apr. 20, 2026.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average, 2006–2025.” Accessed Apr. 13, 2026. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
City of Oakland. “Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, fiscal years 2006–2025.” Schedule 5: tax revenues by source.
City of Oakland. “Multi-year plan to meet voter-mandated staffing and service levels.” Finance and Management Committee, Feb. 10, 2026, agenda item #6. https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7803529
City of Oakland. “Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, fiscal year ended June 30, 2025.” Statistical sections: FTE by Function/Program; Operating Indicators; Changes in Fund Balances. Dec. 30, 2025.
Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland set to declare ‘extreme fiscal necessity’ again, coordinate with unions to increase property taxes.” Oakland Report, Feb. 10, 2026.
Oakland Report contributors. “Oakland's surplus mirage sets the stage for a $34 million tax increase.” Oakland Report, Feb. 28, 2026.
Office of the City Auditor (Houston). Op. cit. (note 2).
Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland taxes hit deep East Oakland's homes up to 48% harder than Rockridge's.” Oakland Report, Apr. 20, 2026; underlying property-value data from ATTOM, “Oakland, CA Real Estate & Property Data,” accessed Apr. 20, 2026.
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates by ZIP Code Tabulation Area, City of Oakland.
Baker, Sarah. “Property tax pass-through to renters: a quasi-experimental approach.” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, December 2025.
City of Oakland. “Rent Adjustment Program annual report fiscal year 2024-25.” Oct. 21, 2025. https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7666836
City of Oakland. “Fiscal Year 2026-30 five-year financial forecast.” Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency / City Council, June 3, 2025, agenda item #9. https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7399425
Taylor, Loren. “75% of Black Oakland residents surveyed say the taxes they pay are not worth it.” Oakland Report, Mar. 21, 2026.
Reinhart, Sean S. “The city of Oakland has broken its promises to voters in three of the last four parcel tax measures.” Oakland Report, Apr. 8, 2026.
California Taxpayers Association (CalTax). “The other property tax: an overview of parcel taxes in California.” March 2013.
Ballotpedia contributors. “Oakland, California, Measure NN, Police and Violence Reduction Parcel Tax Measure (November 2024).” Accessed Apr. 8, 2026.
Ballotpedia contributors. “Oakland, California, Measure E, Create Parcel Tax to Fund Public Safety Programs Measure (June 2026).” Accessed Apr. 23, 2026.
Office of the City Auditor (Houston, Michael). “Audit of library parcel taxes for Fiscal Year 2019–20 through FY 2022–23.” City of Oakland, June 13, 2024.
Ballotpedia contributors. “Oakland, California, Measure D, Parcel Tax for Library Services (June 2018).” Accessed Apr. 8, 2026.
Office of the City Auditor (Houston, Michael). “Budget transparency, performance management, and stronger oversight needed to ensure Oaklanders benefit from the 2020 Parks and Recreation Preservation, Litter Reduction, and Homelessness Support Act.” City of Oakland, Dec. 21, 2023.
Ballotpedia contributors. “Oakland, California, Measure AA, Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment (November 2018).” Accessed Apr. 8, 2026.
City of Oakland. “Resolution No. 73312, Paramedic Services Special Tax (Measure N).” Feb. 25, 1997. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/73312-CMS.pdf
Reinhart, Sean S. “Shrinkflation: Oakland is charging residents more and giving them less.” Oakland Report, Apr. 15, 2026.
Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland union boss threatens fire station closures unless voters approve tax hike – despite the city's past broken promises.” Oakland Report, Apr. 13, 2026.
Ballotpedia contributors. “Oakland Parking Lot and Parcel Tax, Measure Y (November 2004).” Accessed Apr. 13, 2026; California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010).
Oakland Tribune editorial board. “Oakland Tribune editorial: No on Oakland Measures X, W, BB.” Oakland Tribune, Sept. 23, 2010.
Ballotpedia contributors. “Oakland, California, Measure Z, Public Safety Parcel Tax (November 2014).” Accessed Apr. 13, 2026.
City of Oakland. “Argument in Favor of Measure E.” Filed in the Office of the City Clerk, Mar. 18, 2026.
Ko, Kevin. “2 Oakland fire stations closed because of budget shortfall; firefighters warn of life-threatening delays.” CBS News, Jan. 6, 2025; Rhoades, Callie. “‘It would be catastrophic’: After Keller Fire, Oakland officials caution against OFD cuts.” Oaklandside, Oct. 22, 2024.
Ubell, Michael and Tim Gardner. “Oakland employee compensation grew 2.5 times faster than inflation, far outpacing other cities.” Oakland Report, Jul. 9, 2024.
U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2006–2024), Oakland city.” Accessed Apr. 15, 2026.
Transparent California. “California public pay and pension database.” Accessed Apr. 15, 2026.
Davis, Carl et al. “Taxes and Racial Equity: An Overview of State and Local Policy Impacts.” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Mar. 31, 2021.
Fields, Jordan et al. “How the Property Tax System Harms Black Homeowners and Widens the Racial Wealth Gap.” Brookings, Aug. 22, 2023.
Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright, 2017.
Housing Policy Finance Center. “Keys Unlock Dreams: Oakland.” Urban Institute, January 2024.
Fernandez, Lisa. “Black households in San Francisco, Oakland have fewest home-buying options in U.S.: Zillow.” KTVU, Apr. 12, 2018.
Hwang, Jackelyn et al. “Neighborhood change and residential instability in Oakland.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, May 2021.
California Civil Code § 1954.52 (Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act).
Schwegman, David and John Yinger. “The Shifting of the Property Tax on Urban Renters: Evidence from New York State's Homestead Tax Option.” U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, December 2020.
Löffler, Max and Sebastian Siegloch. “Welfare Effects of Property Taxation.” CESifo Working Paper, March 2021.
Fracassa, Dominic. “Judge says SF correct in passing two tax measures on simple majority vote.” San Francisco Chronicle, July 5, 2019.
California Form 460. “Recipient Committee Campaign Statement.” Oaklanders For A Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored By Labor Organizations, Feb. 2, 2026.
Reinhart, Sean S. “44% of Oakland's proposed $34 million tax increase would go to union payouts.” Oakland Report, Feb. 22, 2026.
City of Oakland. “Approve the MOU between the City of Oakland and miscellaneous unions.” Special concurrent meeting of the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency / City Council, Sept. 15, 2025. https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7651498
Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland: $34 million property tax increase appears headed for June ballot.” Oakland Report, Mar. 3, 2026.

About this report. This report synthesizes primary fiscal-policy data from the City of Oakland and external research institutions (SPUR, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Brookings, the Urban Institute, Transparent California, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) into a single voter-facing analysis. Reporting and document discovery by Oakland Report (Reinhart, Taylor, Gardner et al., October 2025–April 2026) is acknowledged in the endnotes wherever it served as the route to underlying source documents. The illustrations on the cover and section openers were prepared specifically for this report. Charts use fiscal-year data from the City of Oakland's Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and external sources cited in each figure. Prepared April 2026.