After voters passed Oakland’s version of Kids First, they had buyers’ remorse when they discovered that it was draining the General Fund. So they passed Measure D in 2009 to reverse the drain of money. Measure D amended City of Oakland Kids First!, Measure OO by redirecting about $3.7 million from youth programs to other city services that would otherwise, under the terms of Measure OO, have gone exclusively into funding youth programs.
A City of Oakland Kids First! Funding, Measure D ballot question was on the July 21, 2009 ballot for voters in the City of Oakland in Alameda County, where it was approved.
Measure D, reversing the Kids First fund diversion was passed by an overwhelming 72% to 28% margin.
Measure D amended City of Oakland Kids First!, Measure OO by redirecting about $3.7 million from youth programs to other city services that would otherwise, under the terms of Measure OO, have gone exclusively into funding youth programs.
The election was conducted as a mail-in ballot only election. The Alameda County Registrar of Voters office mailed out 205,000 ballots to registered voters in Oakland the week of June 22. Ballots had to be returned by July 21, 2009.
Measure D was on the July 21 ballot along with three other measures that city politicians hoped would raise additional tax revenues for the city, whose budget faced a growing deficit as its economically-struggling residents sent in lower taxes than the city had previously estimated would come its way in 2009.
One former Oakland resident wrote on Nextdoor:
I lived in Oakland for 30 years until I moved to Richmond a few years ago. I was, and continue to be, involved in Oakland park & rec as a volunteer and an advocate. Oakland Kids First was good for nonprofits like Boys & Girls Club, Girls Inc, but it has been terrible for city parks, libraries and senior services. Richmond Kids First, if passed, will also divert public dollars to nonprofits. It will affect city parks and rec and hinder the city's ability to offer services to parents and seniors. The council should oppose it