> “We shouldn’t have to do this,” says Steven Kirsh, who is running the last of the three Rockridge campaigns, “but we need to do this.” He doesn’t see the Oakland Police Department suddenly getting more resources, so in order to protect his belongings, family and property value, the $82 per household doesn’t seem like much to ask, for 12 hours of patrolling five days a week. For a four month trial it will work out to less than a dollar a day.
What do you wanna bet this guy would scream to high heaven if the city wanted to tax him an extra $82 a year to fund more patrolmen?
Honestly, I imagine he would LOVE to pay $82 per year for that level of extra patrolling. In fact, I'm sure they'd prefer it, because taxation can remove the free-rider problem Kirsh is struggling with, meaning that he'd get more patrolling for less money, all else equal.
The problem is that all isn't equal. Krish no doubt knows, just as you do if you'd think about it, that there is no possibility of paying $82 in taxes to obtain that level of extra patrolling. The local government is dysfunctional, their cost structure bloated, the political process broken. Keep in mind, Oakland has some of the highest local taxes in America; in a very real sense Kirsh is already paying that $82 per household (and more besides) yet not getting the patrolling he wants. What would adding another $82 do? Would it fund 12 hours of patrolling, five days a week? If you know ANYTHING about the cost structure of modern police departments in general, or Oakland in particular, the notion is absurd. The city of Oakland is not capable of providing what Kirsh and his fellows want.
It's like looking at someone buying a second hand Acer laptop $200 off Craigslist, and muttering that you bet he would refuse to pay $300 for new Macbook Retina. He almost certainly would not refuse that, but we'll never know, because that deal is certainly not on offer.
Knowing someone in Oakland that is part of a community considering private patrols, they'd rather not be paying for their own security. That said, Oakland like many municipalities granted the moon for pensions during the boom times without considering the busts. This, coupled with the pensions of higher ups, is putting a serious hurt on dollars available to boots on the ground.
Yes, people at some point might have griped about "an extra $82" in taxes, but they are way beyond that point now. OPD isn't patrolling the hills, property crimes are rarely followed up on, etc.
Snark all you want, but there are people with families living there that are at their wits end.
Have they ever thought about leaving Oakland? I know it's not easy to just move, especially with family and job commitments, but I wonder if the people you know have ever mentioned what the breaking point would be.
If they can solve their problem for less than $1 per day, they're probably a ways from the pack-up-and-move point. (Of course the effectiveness of this private security remains to be seen.)
Thats the thing about taxes though. You don't know where your moneys going to end up for sure. Oakland's government is notorious for squandering funds on private consultants and good will projects. A Tax raise is more like an uncontrolled penalty scenario for your money. People are a lot more willing to put funds in when they feel they control outcome.
I don't accept your premise that the people paying for this program would reject higher taxes.
But it's worth noting that Oakland has some of the highest property and sales tax rates in what is already a highly taxed state. And as a reward, it has some of the highest crime rates in the country.
So I could understand if someone thought that increasing tax rates was not a particularly effective way to increase public safety.
It's earmarked specifically for his neighborhood. Plus, the neighborhood has more control. If the security firm sucks, the neighborhood can fire them, or have them bring in different people.
It would have to be more than $82 though (how much?) because they would have to pay for the citizens in others hoods whose income is less or non-existent.
Private security officers are cheaper because lots of them are either:
1) Considerably less trained/qualified than police officers, or
2) Police officers working part-time for additional income, whose training, benefits, etc., come through their main job (and who become unavailable when required to perform overtime in that job, for which they are paid more.)
What do you wanna bet this guy would scream to high heaven if the city wanted to tax him an extra $82 a year to fund more patrolmen?