The Unfairest Oakland Tax of All
By Kevin Heffernan
The Last Standing Oakland Outhouse - Demolished in 2006
What you are about to read is true and factual as improbable as it may seem. And it’s even official as codified into law. Said another way, you can’t make this stuff up.
On occasion some laws pasted by our elected officials seem just down right silly particularly when viewed in a distant retrospect. Thoughts come to mind like ‘What were they thinking?’. Or, they just couldn’t be serious! But when it comes to taxes in general or a particular tax on a particular item held or used by only a portion of the population, one knows that they were serious even though we seemingly are unable to figure out precisely what they were thinking.
So, here for all to see, or read, is a prime historical example of government run amok by intruding into the most private aspects of people’s lives. No, it’s not Washington, DC and nor is it the State of New Jersey. And if you guessed Bergen County, you’d still be off the mark. Well, that leaves our most beloved town of Oakland.
The Oakland Mayor and Council had gone amok with an unfair tax? Yup!
The year was 1959 and Oakland was booming. Route 208 was coming and the world seemed to discover that our tiny, sleepy village was a fine place to be and raise a family. Something like 250 – 300 houses were being built per year during those times as the population grew from 1,817 souls in 1950 to 9,446 in 1960. And Oakland had just celebrated the opening of our first supermarket to serve our rapidly growing community. Those were heady times indeed!
Detail from article about the $5 Outhouse Tax - 1959
It was during that infamous year that the dark and dastardly deed occurred. Oakland passed a tax on outhouses! A $5 per year tax on every outhouse! A TAX ON OUTHOUSES!!!! How outrageous can things be? Is nothing sacred? Demand a recall vote! To make a horrible situation even worse, the enabling law for the tax did not distinguish between a 1-holer and a 2-holer or for that matter, a 3-holer or a 4-holer. Oakland with outhouses in the mid 20th Century?
What were they thinking?
Try as I may, this writer simply fails to divine the rationale for the imposition of this tax most unjust, this travesty wrought upon the unsuspecting long time residents of Oakland. Perhaps one can rationalize that at the time Oakland had one foot in it’s sleepy past and another rushing into the 20th Century and the time had come to make a significant break with the past. If the Oakland railroad station can be destroyed without a public whimper, then why not tax outhouses? Or maybe the Oakland Mayor and Council just had plumbing installed in their homes and wanted other to experience the joy as well. Who Knows?
But alas, there were the rebels among us who for many years privately maintained their privy complete with a Sears catalog, the defiant ones. That is until 2006 when the march of progress could be delayed no more. It was then during the destruction of the old houses on Allerman Road that Oakland unofficially mourned the passing it’s last official outhouse. A sad day indeed that forever shall be recorded in the annals of Oakland history. Oakland was rural no more.
Kevin Heffernan – kheffernan555@gmail.com
Just for a little levity, another great article by Kevin only this one “stinks to high heaven”.
As larger properties were subdivided into small lots and backyards became less private the remaining outhouses were visible from all adjacent neighboring yards.
The backyard was also becoming a focal point of suburban living. BBQs and pool
parties were not compatible with your neighbor’s privy 50 or so feet away. The modest tax was a gentle way of encouraging their removal. Indoor plumbing was pretty much universal so the remaining outhouses were probably more a statement by their owners about the changing times.
When I was a police officer in Oakland I was well aware of this law and I always had thoughts in the back of my brain to go around to construction sites and issue summonses for the Port-a-Johns. The law doesn’t differentiate between permanent and temporary structures. The only thing that held me back was knowing that my prosecutor and judge would not entertain the summonses and dismiss them, not to mention that I would not have good rapport with them for some time. But I still chastise myself harshly for not doing it!