Although some members of the Oakland City Council praised the measure placed on the ballot early Wednesday morning for taking a balanced approach to crime fighting, the initiative drew fire from all sides Tuesday and failed to win the unanimous endorsement of the council.

"It's clear that this city is polarized," said Councilmember Jean Quan (Montclair-Laurel). "Some people believe there is no such thing as a good police officer; others believe there is no such thing as a worthwhile social program."

If the measure passes in November, the city plans to spend $9.5 million on 63 new police officers and assign most of them to walk city beats and tackle street-level crime.

Another $6.4 million would be used to expand violence-prevention programs, especially those targeted toward recent parolees and truant middle school and high school students.

The remaining $4 million would be used to end the Fire Department's practice of flexible deployment, which shutters one fire station on a rotating basis for three days at a time to save money and manpower.

To pay for the new officers, firefighters and programs, voters will be asked Nov. 2 to approve annual parcel tax assessments of $88 for each single-family home, $60 for each apartment and $45 for each commercial space equivalent to a dwelling, as well as an 8.5 percent hike in the parking tax.

Two-thirds of voters must approve the measure for it to pass.

"This is a great measure that couples short-term intervention and long-term prevention," said Councilmember Danny Wan (Grand Lake-Chinatown).

Councilmember Desley Brooks (Eastmont-Seminary) cast the only vote against putting the measure on the ballot, calling it a Band-Aid rather than a long-term solution.

"A deal has been cut, and Oakland has been sold a bag of goods," Brooks said.

Councilmember Nancy Nadel (Downtown-Oakland) said she voted reluctantly for the measure and warned she did not think it would pass in Oakland, with its progressive electorate wary of the police.

"I'll let the voters decide, but it's not the right direction," Nadel said.

Nadel's last ditch effort to reduce the number of officers by 11 to increase the amount of money for social programs failed, winning only Brooks' support.

The 63 potential new officers would be added to the police force's current authorized strength of 739. But that would amount to just 24 more officers than two years ago, when the city's budget crunch began.

"That is simply too much to pay for only 24 officers," said Coleen Brown, a member of Safety First, which has been lobbying for more than 100 new officers.

About half of the speakers at Tuesday night's meeting told the council the measure simply does not hire enough police.

"The reality is that Oakland is severely underserved by the police, and people are suffering every day because of it," said Oakland resident Thomas Priestly. "These officers will have only a nominal effect."

Other speakers condemned the council for setting aside less than half of the money raised by the measure to help parolees, troubled young adults and teens.

"Police officers do not stop crime," said Andre Spearman, an Oakland resident. "This is a smoke screen to make people feel better."

The funds raised by the measure, if approved, would be administered by an oversight committee made up of one person appointed by each council member and three selected by the mayor.

The measure on the November ballot will be the third time Oakland officials have asked voters to tax themselves in order to hire more officers and expand social services.

In 2002, voters defeated Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to raise hotel occupancy taxes to hire 100 new police officers, and in March, Measure R, which was crafted by Nadel, failed by less than a percentage point.

"This will be a hard measure to pass if a significant group organizes against it," said Councilmember Jane Brunner (North Oakland.)