With 60 percent of the votes counted, Measure Y was winning 68.8 percent of the vote. Because the measure raises property taxes, it needs a two-thirds majority to become law.

“Well, it’s close,” said Councilwoman Nancy Nadel, a strong supporter of the measure. “But it looks like it might be passing.”

Measure Y originated as a compromise between those who wanted more cops on Oakland streets and those who thought that social programs were the correct route to lowering crime.

The measure would add $19.9 million for police, fire, and social services, by creating a parcel tax of $88 per single-family home, and $60 per apartment. The parcel tax on commercial property would be based on the land use category and square footage of the property. The measure would also impose a commercial parking surcharge of 8.5 percent in Oakland.

From the new revenue, $9.5 million would be spent to hire 63 more police officers while $6.3 million would be spent on social programs, like after-school programs, incentives to re-integrate recent parolees into society, and counseling for children who have witnessed violence. The remaining $4.1 million would pay for fire services.

Strange political alliances existed on both sides of the Measure Y divide. Supporting the measure was a coalition spanning almost the entire city council—only Councilwoman Desley Brooks opposed the measure. Police and fire groups also supported the measure.

On the other side, opponents to the measure ran two separate campaigns. From the left, a shoestring campaign headed by former Councilman Wilson Riles vocally opposed giving any money to the Oakland Police Department -- a department Riles described as dysfunctional. The Rental Housing Association, which favors more police but opposes new taxes to pay for them, ran a parallel campaign supported largely by rental property owners.

The two “No on Y” campaigns had very different ideas about how to solve crime in Oakland, but were united in their belief that Measure Y was a badly written, poor compromise. Riles said the social programs created by the measure were a “grab bag” of various interests.

Steve Edrington, director of the Rental Housing Association, said he didn’t trust the city to use the money to hire more police, although the text of the measure states the funds may be used only for that purpose. He’d like to see more than 63 cops added in Oakland, but said property owners were overtaxed, and city hall should spend existing monies more efficiently.

Councilwoman Nadel acknowledged the measure was a compromise.

“I was hoping to do something that was a 50-50 split between prevention and police,” said Nadel, “but we didn’t have the votes on the council.”