Oakland parking fiasco

Commentary by Clinton Killian

The overwhelming majority of Oakland city employees and officials are hardworking and dedicated. However, some appear to be unclear on the concept of public service. They see their job not as a way to serve Oakland citizens but to make their lives more miserable.

The latest example of this unclear thinking is the current Oakland parking fiasco. You may remember last July that the city of Oakland had to balance an $80 million deficit. One of the solutions was to raise parking tickets and extend paid parking time to 8 p.m. The citizens’ backlash caused the council to retreat slightly, rolling the time back to 6 p.m.

Some city parking administrators decided that the way to make up for that “shortfall” was to more aggressively ticket marginal residential parking violations, like parking around synagogues and churches on Saturdays and Sundays, parking in the wrong direction or curb parking throughout Oakland’s neighborhoods.

Management ordered the city’s parking enforcement officers — or PEO — into the neighborhoods to issue any and all types of tickets. After all, the logic goes that if you issue 100 objectionable tickets, only about five people will appeal. The rest will just grumble and pay, thus becoming “revenue enhancers.”

The city received extensive backlash from these Brainy Smurf ideas. The citizens complained and made it clear that they did not want the ticket avalanche in their day-to-day lives. They complained even louder to their council persons, some of whom demanded that their district neighborhoods not be ticketed.

As a result, parking enforcement, which is part of the Finance and Management Agency (go figure!), then ordered the PEOs in those neighborhoods to issue “courtesy warnings” while continue to heavily ticket the rest of us, primarily in East and West Oakland neighborhoods.

Yep, you got it! So starting in July 2009, some parts of Oakland were handed out warnings while others were heavily ticketed. I guess those city administrators’ concept of public service does not include equal and fair treatment of citizens.

Noel Pinto, director of parking enforcement, said the notices were supposed to be “temporary” until a citizen city parking committee could be formed to study the issue. Interesting, the City Council was never informed of this change of policy and never had a chance to weigh in. Certainly, no citizens served on this yet-to-be formed committee or had a chance to debate this new policy since there was no public notice or hearings regarding the matter.

When you think about it, in addition to the inherent unfairness, this is poor use of city resources. Why send fully capable PEOs into neighborhoods simply to hand out warnings? Isn’t it simpler to request council members to inform their districts of the changes in city policy? I guess next they will send all firefighters door to door to warn citizens not to play with matches.

After several weeks of this unfair treatment, the PEOs complained to their supervisors. The PEOs recognized that this new policy was a waste of city resources and grossly unfair to its citizens. Of course, they were systematically ignored by the city management and told to keep the blizzard going. They were still ordered to hand out courtesy notices in some neighborhoods, while other neighborhoods were heavily ticketed.

Finally, in January, their union wrote a letter to the city administrator and got absolutely no response. Then, these courageous city workers decided it was time to expose this unseemly money-grubbing, punitive practice. They went public with their concerns and informed the public of what was occurring. They invited the public to meet with them at City Hall to expose this practice. Some elected officials also turned out to hear the details that city management forgot to tell them.

Once they were exposed, the city management immediately claimed that it had rescinded the practice months ago and it was no longer an issue. Many of the council persons were strangely quiet. Two of the blindsided council members whose districts were most affected by this deceptive city practice promptly took action. Other city leaders simply ran and hid for cover.

Then, the city attorney weighed in, warning the city administrator that this unfair policy had opened up the city to numerous lawsuits and suggesting the tickets be dismissed. The city administrator dismissed the city attorney, stating the tickets issued only represented 1.5 percent of the total tickets last year. Try telling that to the over 8,000 people who got the tickets. I’m sure they felt that one was more than enough.

So I guess the city will have to listen to the attorney who takes up the ticket injustice or wait for thousands of people to appeal the tickets. Maybe the City Council will step forward and issue amnesty for the punitive tickets. There are much better ways to balance the budget than churning the citizens.

If nothing else, this example should be a lesson learned for the power of the public raising its voice. When you are involved and you participate, you can have an impact on decisions. Though many of us are irritated by them at times, the PEOs deserve applause for standing up for us, the citizens.

There will be many future opportunities for the city to get serious about balancing the budget and protecting quality city services. The city is still running a current deficit and will generate $40 million more come July 1. The City Council responded by laying off 40 workers. This is not the way to balance the budget. It is easy to simply fire city employees, but it is not best for the city. In order for the city to get through its financial crisis, it must have a better process. Simply chopping off productive, revenue-generating, service-providing workers is not the answer.

It is going to take a review of the city’s spending. It is going to take the active participation of the workers and citizens because they have a stake in the outcome to help identify more productive work procedures and cost saving. Treat them as a partner, not an adversary.

Yes, there is going to be pain. But it has to be less draconian and more productive. Start the review of city spending and fund the city auditor to identify unnecessary spending. Cut unnecessary management spending and consider a pay cut for the top 25 percent earners in the city. Ensure that the highest level of service is maintained.

Here’s a hint for all city officials: Waste plus distain does not equal public service. It is time that public representatives realize that their job is to represent the best interests of the public, deliver quality services, and not punish residents in their everyday lives.

Clinton Killian is an Oakland attorney, resident and former planning commissioner. He can be reached at (510) 625-8823 or clintonkillian@yahoo.com.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Breaking News