Another brilliant, insightful and thought-provoking article from the digital pen of Tim Gardner. Seems that a rating system like this is long overdue. That said, in 75 words it's very difficult to convey all the ways a bond may not work as intended, and harder still to assess, no less convey the probability of that outcome. For that, one needs a general primer on how government works and how it has not worked of late - would love to see this kind of voter education as a precondition for voting if we could do it equitably...
Good comment " in 75 words it's very difficult to convey all the ways a bond may not work as intended". But at least we should be able to get to the point that the 75 word title is not deliberately or even unintentionally misleading...
Yes thank you for this piece! I had assumed that local measures were held to the same [low] standards as statewide measures. And even the wording of state measures has been a source of debate and litigation. And confusion! Accidental or intentional. And as the grand jury pointed out, some of it will be unintentional when the description is written by the folks who want it.
The Oakland Report is great, but somehow we need a more comprehensive system for ensuring our government is honest. It seems that as the years go on, the corruption just gets more sophisticated.
100% I noticed this a few years ago. Confirmed by the emails and texts I get asking for my "feedback" on local politics but, in practice, these are always just probing tone to see what will poll most favorably. Perhaps you've gotten these as well; of course I ignore them now. At this point when I see some expensive measure followed by a statement that "funds will be carefully managed by an oversight board" or something similar, all I can do is laugh. There is never oversight. The funds are reliably mis-managed. I'm a liberal since forever, but there is something to the observation that relentless single-party control of everything leads to poor outcomes. There is never any pushback.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There goes the popular assumption that only the far right wants to rig the game! With both sides pushing beyond the unspoken rules, is it time to look more carefully at how the ‘refs’ are recruited, trained and monitored? And how they are protected from influence? We’re starting to focus on election officials. Maybe we should look more broadly at protecting all of government?
I have experience with the Vacant Land Tax (Measure W), which operates outside the law. If building codes, zoning regulations, or federal property owner's rights conflict with the VPT, they are systematically ignored. Complaints to the Finance Manager and the Oakland Ethics Commission are studiously ignored. A lot that cannot be developed receives a $6,000 (5% of appraised value) Vacant Property Tax each year, an amount much greater than the annual county real estate tax. The sale of Measure W to the City of Oakland was a well-supported fraud. Representative Kaplan stated in a promotional sound bite, "Measure W will pry vacant land out of the hands of large corporations". What occurred was W is a clever way of bypassing Proposition 13. Additionally, should you appeal a VPT finding, the VPT is not obligated to provide you with an explanation. If you wish to pursue it further, you are obligated to file an action in Superior Court. The entire measure was written to disadvantage the property owner and gain large sums of money under false premises.
We saw your article on biased local measure questions in Alameda County. They are all biased. The grand jurors rating systems misses the point.
The law (Elections Code 13119) does not permit either a title or summary for local ballot measures. Every title and/or summary is inherently and unavoidably biased as it takes the authors' point of view.
We'd like to connect with the former grand jurors to show them how they have been misled by county counsel.
It is not the local jurisdictions whose duty it is. It is the registrar's duty to reject the questions (based on statutes and appellate court decisions). Mr. DuPuis, likely with the nod of county counsel, simply ignores the law and his mandatory ministerial duty.
This is a statewide issue with every one of the 58 county registrars all (as if by agreement) ignoring the law and their duty.
I applaud the intent of this mission, but question the methodology.
So, two questions:
1. Why should 19 anonymous laypeople be considered reliable experts in assessing neutrality of ballot measure text? Who are these people and how were they selected and by by whom?
2. Are you, Tim Gardener, a member of said Jury? If so, this piece smacks dishonesty in your omission of that disclosure. You cannot advocate for transparency while remaining opaque yourself.
1. The members of the Association, as explained in the article, are all former Civil Grand Jurors. They are assessing the accuracy and bias of the ballot questions as a volunteer service to the community — information that members the community may consider, or dismiss, as they see fit.
2. I am not affiliated with the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury, nor the Association, nor did I participate in the rating activities.
Another brilliant, insightful and thought-provoking article from the digital pen of Tim Gardner. Seems that a rating system like this is long overdue. That said, in 75 words it's very difficult to convey all the ways a bond may not work as intended, and harder still to assess, no less convey the probability of that outcome. For that, one needs a general primer on how government works and how it has not worked of late - would love to see this kind of voter education as a precondition for voting if we could do it equitably...
Good comment " in 75 words it's very difficult to convey all the ways a bond may not work as intended". But at least we should be able to get to the point that the 75 word title is not deliberately or even unintentionally misleading...
thank you so much. Ballot measures are so confusing that we tend to just not vote or just say no… This is helpful.
Yes thank you for this piece! I had assumed that local measures were held to the same [low] standards as statewide measures. And even the wording of state measures has been a source of debate and litigation. And confusion! Accidental or intentional. And as the grand jury pointed out, some of it will be unintentional when the description is written by the folks who want it.
The Oakland Report is great, but somehow we need a more comprehensive system for ensuring our government is honest. It seems that as the years go on, the corruption just gets more sophisticated.
100% I noticed this a few years ago. Confirmed by the emails and texts I get asking for my "feedback" on local politics but, in practice, these are always just probing tone to see what will poll most favorably. Perhaps you've gotten these as well; of course I ignore them now. At this point when I see some expensive measure followed by a statement that "funds will be carefully managed by an oversight board" or something similar, all I can do is laugh. There is never oversight. The funds are reliably mis-managed. I'm a liberal since forever, but there is something to the observation that relentless single-party control of everything leads to poor outcomes. There is never any pushback.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There goes the popular assumption that only the far right wants to rig the game! With both sides pushing beyond the unspoken rules, is it time to look more carefully at how the ‘refs’ are recruited, trained and monitored? And how they are protected from influence? We’re starting to focus on election officials. Maybe we should look more broadly at protecting all of government?
I have experience with the Vacant Land Tax (Measure W), which operates outside the law. If building codes, zoning regulations, or federal property owner's rights conflict with the VPT, they are systematically ignored. Complaints to the Finance Manager and the Oakland Ethics Commission are studiously ignored. A lot that cannot be developed receives a $6,000 (5% of appraised value) Vacant Property Tax each year, an amount much greater than the annual county real estate tax. The sale of Measure W to the City of Oakland was a well-supported fraud. Representative Kaplan stated in a promotional sound bite, "Measure W will pry vacant land out of the hands of large corporations". What occurred was W is a clever way of bypassing Proposition 13. Additionally, should you appeal a VPT finding, the VPT is not obligated to provide you with an explanation. If you wish to pursue it further, you are obligated to file an action in Superior Court. The entire measure was written to disadvantage the property owner and gain large sums of money under false premises.
Mr Gardner,
We saw your article on biased local measure questions in Alameda County. They are all biased. The grand jurors rating systems misses the point.
The law (Elections Code 13119) does not permit either a title or summary for local ballot measures. Every title and/or summary is inherently and unavoidably biased as it takes the authors' point of view.
We'd like to connect with the former grand jurors to show them how they have been misled by county counsel.
It is not the local jurisdictions whose duty it is. It is the registrar's duty to reject the questions (based on statutes and appellate court decisions). Mr. DuPuis, likely with the nod of county counsel, simply ignores the law and his mandatory ministerial duty.
This is a statewide issue with every one of the 58 county registrars all (as if by agreement) ignoring the law and their duty.
Richard Michael 909-378-5401
I applaud the intent of this mission, but question the methodology.
So, two questions:
1. Why should 19 anonymous laypeople be considered reliable experts in assessing neutrality of ballot measure text? Who are these people and how were they selected and by by whom?
2. Are you, Tim Gardener, a member of said Jury? If so, this piece smacks dishonesty in your omission of that disclosure. You cannot advocate for transparency while remaining opaque yourself.
1. The members of the Association, as explained in the article, are all former Civil Grand Jurors. They are assessing the accuracy and bias of the ballot questions as a volunteer service to the community — information that members the community may consider, or dismiss, as they see fit.
2. I am not affiliated with the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury, nor the Association, nor did I participate in the rating activities.