Fremont is people rich, revenue poor
By Matt Artz
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm in Fremont, Uncategorized.
Below is a chart that was included in a recent city report. It shows that compared to other cities in the county, Fremont and Union City have the lease revenue per resident. Some of that has to do with good old Prop. 13. Some of the readers could probably explain it better than I can. I’m guessing Emeryville has the highest revenue because it’s basically a mall with a mayor. Interesting, though not surprising, that Fremont has double Berkeley’s population, but roughly the same amount of general fund revenue.
| Population | City | General Fund Revenue (millions) | Revenue per person |
| 9,727 | Emeryville | $28.9 | $2,979 |
| 11,100 | Piedmont | $17.8 | $1,605 |
| 69,388 | Pleasanton | $95.97 | $1,383 |
| 420,183 | Oakland | $538.1 | $1,281 |
| 106,697 | Berkeley | $130.1 | $1,220 |
| 46,934 | Dublin | $53.1 | $1,130 |
| 75,823 | Alameda | $79.3 | $1,046 |
| 83,604 | Livermore | $83.57 | $1,000 |
| 81,851 | San Leandro | $79.28 | $969 |
| 43,872 | Newark | $34.75 | $792 |
| 16,877 | Albany | $12.86 | $762 |
| 149,205 | Hayward | $104.95 | $703 |
| 213,512 | Fremont | $133.96 | $627 |
| 73,402 | Union City | $37.05 | $505 |
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
June 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Nice start, Matt. . . But, If you were working on an article that evaluated the compensation of CEO’s as a basis for how effective they were, would you look at ONLY their base salary ?? The answer is “No” – you’d want to examine their TOTAL compensation including benefits, and salary, and paid perks. So why would you compare cities based on their total “General fund” revenue per capita ? Dont you need to examine TOTAL city revenue per capita to even have the beginnings of a reasonable comparison ?? All “general funds” are NOT created equal.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
One reason for the differences between cities is that the city’s share of property tax is based on what the city collected before Prop 13 passed. Fremont gets about 15% of the property tax paid while Oakland and Berkeley get almost double that. I did some work many years ago and found that Oakland and Fremont have essentially the same assessed valuation, so if Fremont receives $40 million from its share of property tax, Oakland would receive $80 million (approx.)
Bbox is right, you need to compare apples and apples and look at the revenue elements that make up the General Funds for each city.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I wasn’t comparing anything to anything else. I just copied a chart that I found interesting. I said the revenue had to do with prop 13, but didn’t think I had the expertise to fully explain it. Thanks Gus for adding some explanation.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Gosh, Matt . .. . I think you most definately *were* drawing a comparison – specifically with your statement that “.. Fremont has double Berkeley’s population, but roughly the same amount of general fund revenue ”
This is a pretty clear “comparison” by my understanding of the word.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
People are shopping at Great Mall, Santana Row, and Westfield Valley Fair. Fremont is so boring and need more improvement. People are shopping apparel store not furniture store. We have so many furniture store in Fremont, including Pacific Commons. In order to get revenue, we need high tech companies, upscale restaurants, and apparel stores. By the way no one want to stay hotel in Fremont.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Looks like Brian rigorously believes in what President Bush asked Americans to do after the 9/11 attacks…go shopping.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I think Brian hit the nail on the head. Shopping, industry and tourism feed the general fund. There’s a reason San Francisco is so well funded despite the fact that a paltry 750,000 people live there. Fremont is the polar opposite. That’s not a bad thing, just the reality.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Gus is right – Fremont, by comparison with other cities, has been hamstrung by its relative growth post prop-13. . . . Perhaps in the presence of strong leadership who demonstrate sound economic planning and controls, a city like Fremont might navigate itself out of this economic squeeze play.
Unfortunately, “strong” leadership and “sound” economic planning and control are not evidenced by our city management. Instead, Fremont constituency is mired in small-town politicing, strong-arm attempts at raising/increasing tax revenue, redevelopment ad nausium, and the occassional personal-interest boondoggle. . . . .
So, Gus – while you’re spot on – I’m afraid that it’ll be tough to address the kind of shorfall you describe until we establish some credibility and trust in our leadership.
In short – if we’re truly “revenue poor” – shouldn’t we set some clear expectations about resources expended in the name of redevelopment; shouldnt we take advantage of opportunities to generate revenue like charging for false alarms – and shouldn’t we curtail travel to far-flung places half a world away in the name of strengthening our international ties with our “sister cities” . . . . .
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
In the past, Fremont is not going in the right direction. Present, Fremont is in the right direction. Mayor Bob Wasserman making Fremont live, work, and play. Fremont is changing so much since Bob Wasserman is the mayor. You can’t even dream of building downtown in Fremont. Fremont has no money to fund the downtown. Bob Wasserman is right about downtown. Fremont need to be like San Francisco downtown. People want to shop there, live there, an even play there.
All of my family just don’t want to shop at Fremont Hub or eat dinner in Fremont. We just go to Great Mall or other places to shop and dine. We just need Fremont to be more urban. Urban are rich and Suburban are poor.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:19 am
Brian says, “urban are rich and suburban are poor”. This is not exactly on the mark. Fremont’s median income is $88,335 and San Francisco’s is $57,833, according to the U.S. Census of 2006.
I would hope our vision of Fremont’s future constitutes much more than it being one giant shopping mall, or mawl, which ever you prefer.
Revenue stream is an important factor in maintaining our city’s government, but commercialization should not be achieved to the detriment of our daily environmental well-being. Life is much more than buying things. Brian if you have the time I suggest you watch the 20-minute video entitled, “The Story of Stuff” http://www.storyofstuff.com/
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
Brian, on further evaluation of your comment about rich and poor, I realize you were not referring to income, but what is available to the urban shopper vs. the suburban shopper. I would love to see a downtown Fremont that would afford us dining, entertainment and cultural venues, along with shopping resources. As fuel costs continue to rise and people are forced to curtail their driving habits businesses will seek more centralized locations and hopefully this will re-invigorate the idea of a downtown Fremont. A pedestrian friendly downtown.