Oakland’s first formal audit of Measure W, the vacant property tax voters approved in 2018, finds the program generally holding its own while calling out big gaps in goals and transparency. The review does not label the tax a failure, but auditors say the city could make the revenue work a lot harder for homelessness prevention and affordable housing. The report also sets up a near-term policy fight over whether Oakland should lightly tweak the flat parcel fee or redesign the levy to put more pressure on speculators.
According to a performance audit by the Oakland City Auditor’s Office, the Vacant Property Tax has been mostly well administered but lacks measurable goals and consistent reporting that would let voters and councilmembers judge whether it is actually working. Auditors urged the city to regularly track vacancy trends and tax performance, tighten up what counts as administrative costs, and publish annual reports to the council and the tax oversight commission so outcomes can be weighed against clear objectives.
The tax itself is a flat parcel charge, $6,000 for most vacant parcels and $3,000 for condominium units or certain ground-floor commercial spaces, and it kicks in when a parcel is in use fewer than 50 days in a calendar year, according to a City of Oakland report. The finance department runs a Vacant Property Tax portal and uses an outside administrator to handle notices and petitions, and the council approved ordinance changes in late 2025 intended to protect bona fide new owners from surprise bills.
Where the money is supposed to go
Measure W revenues have generally landed in the $5–7 million range, and recent Oakland budget documents show year-end Measure W receipts just over $6 million. The ballot language and budget rules require that at least 25% of those funds be used for code enforcement and illegal-dumping cleanup, with administrative costs capped at no more than 15%. Auditors said the city should make those allocations and spending easier to track in its public reports. City of Oakland budget materials spell out the dedicated fund and the maintenance-of-effort requirements.
Audit flags limits and out-of-city comparisons
Auditors also found that Oakland appears to underuse Measure W money for programs that directly serve people at risk of homelessness, while steering a large share of the cash toward illegal-dumping cleanup. Local coverage of the audit reports that roughly two-thirds of recent Measure W spending went to dumping remediation. The audit contrasts Oakland’s flat parcel levy with other cities that scale penalties by assessed value or unit count, a design that can produce six-figure bills on high-value vacant homes. Those comparisons, as reported by The Oaklandside, suggest Oakland’s flat fee creates weaker incentives for large property owners to put idle land and buildings to use.
How many parcels are actually taxed
The program currently reaches a relatively small slice of Oakland properties. A 2023 city report shows that annual assessed parcels under the tax ranged from about 1,200 to 1,700 in the early years, averaging roughly 1,500 parcels, with annual collections fluctuating as owners claimed exemptions or appealed their bills. Auditors highlighted some quirks in the setup, including the fact that an entire empty apartment building is counted as a single parcel instead of being taxed by unit, which softens the tax’s punch against big, vacant portfolios. City of Oakland reports lay out those parcel counts and collection rates.
What comes next
Auditors want the council and administration to set clear, measurable goals for Measure W, lock in a stricter definition of what counts as administration, and deliver annual performance reports so the public can see whether the tax is reducing homelessness or mostly paying for cleanup. Finance Director Bradley Johnson told The Oaklandside that he agrees with the findings and that the administration is prepared to carry out the recommendations, while noting that decisions about whether land is built on or brought into use still rest largely with private owners. City staff now have a short checklist of definitional and reporting fixes to put in place before the next budget cycle and before the oversight commission checks on the city’s progress.
