What the Council Could Do Given the Jockeying by the 2 Main Factions
This piece by David Garrick at the U-T was published Friday, June 7 and gives the establishment press’ hope for the budget.
San Diego would increase money for small business aid, arts programs and reducing climate impacts to low-income neighborhoods as part of a budget compromise proposal endorsed Friday by City Council members.
During a contentious five-hour hearing, a majority of the council also supported more money for victims of the Jan. 22 floods, drop-in centers for low-income youth and rental subsidies for people with unstable housing.
The new spending, which the council is scheduled to finalize Tuesday, aims to reverse cuts that critics say would disproportionately impact low-income neighborhoods, homeless San Diegans and people of color.
Mayor Todd Gloria proposed nearly $40 million in such cuts to help close a budget deficit of roughly $150 million in April.
The mayor reversed some of those cuts in May when he released an updated version of his $2.15 billion proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. And council members seemed likely, based on Friday’s hearing, to reverse some others during Tuesday’s budget vote.
Council members specified where the city could get the money for some of the new spending, including by cutting park rangers, changing how the city buys vehicles and delaying a proposed 1,000-person city homeless shelter.
But specific funding sources were not identified for some other proposals. If they can’t agree on sources Tuesday, council members may not follow through on some of the new spending or on reversing some of budget cuts.
A set of new expenditures proposed by the city’s independent budget analyst, which came with a list of specific funding sources, was embraced Friday by nearly the entire council.
That $9.7 million package includes $1.1 million for small business aid, $5.9 million for climate equity projects, $800,000 to make dangerous intersections safer, $500,000 to upgrade the Southcrest Recreation Center and $120,000 for a long-awaited new lifeguard tower in Pacific Beach.
The package also includes a $450,000 increase in arts funding and $100,000 for each of the city’s nine council districts to fund community projects and programs.
A five-member council majority expressed support for a separate package of spending that includes $3.1 million for flood victims, $1 million for drop-in centers and $2.6 million for rental subsidies.
Members of that majority are Council President Sean Elo-Rivera and Councilmembers Henry Foster III, Joe LaCava, Kent Lee and Vivian Moreno.
They also expressed support for restoring all or most of $8 million the mayor wants to take from the Housing Commission to help fund city homelessness programs.
It’s not clear whether the majority could secure a crucial sixth vote if the mayor uses his line-item veto to reverse some of the budget changes. None of the council’s other members expressed explicit support for those changes.
San Diego’s budget rules require only a five-member majority to pass the budget, but six votes are needed to override the mayor’s line-item veto.
The council majority stopped short of proposing any changes to the general structure of Gloria’s proposed budget, which avoids deep cuts with short-term fixes.
Most of the gaping deficit won’t be closed with actual cuts. Instead, the city is making one-time moves like canceling $30 million in scheduled reserve contributions and borrowing $25 million to fund infrastructure projects instead of paying for them up front.
The mayor says his approach makes sense because he doesn’t want to reverse progress on issues like homelessness and street paving.
City officials also say tax revenues could bounce back if the economy improves or if city voters approve ballot measures this fall that would raise the sales tax and impose a parcel tax for flood prevention.
No members of the council have criticized or questioned that part of the mayor’s approach during hearings this spring.
But they have criticized the mayor for cuts that they say fall too hard on low-income neighborhoods and people of color.
Elo-Rivera reiterated those complaints Friday.
“This budget is balanced on the backs of those who have the least,” he said.
He praised the mayor for reversing some of the cuts in May. But he said they shouldn’t have been proposed at all.
“We’re interested in equity when it’s convenient, and it can’t be that way,” he said. “It cannot be the programs that we try to shove into the budget with the scraps remaining after everyone one else has gotten not what they need, but what they want.”
Moreno and Foster also called the equity cuts unacceptable.
After some of his colleagues lobbied passionately for homelessness proposals in the budget, Foster said it was wrong to prioritize homelessness over the more than 1,000 families displaced from their homes by the Jan. 22 flooding in southeastern San Diego.
“I think we should be taking that same passion — that same tenacity — with how we are going to move forward with taking care of our flood-impacted families,” he said.
Councilmember Stephen Whitburn said homelessness efforts, particularly the mayor’s proposal for a 1,000-person shelter at Kettner Boulevard and Vine Street, must be the city’s No. 1 priority.
“If we believe housing is a human right, then surely we must believe — at the very least — that shelter is a human right,” he said.
Whitburn said he agrees that permanent housing is a superior solution to shelters, but added that permanent housing takes years and the city has less control over the process.
“Adding shelter is faster, and it’s something we can do,” he said.
Five council members also expressed support for adding $91,000 to the budget for case management software that City Attorney Mara Elliott has requested for Your Safe Place, a city facility focused on domestic violence.
1- Hopefully the small business aid, would bring back parking in commercial areas, and bike lanes relocated in nearby blocks, with less traffic.
2- Arts programs are a WANT not a NEED.
3- How dare the Mayor and Council talk about climate impact, since they are constantly reducing traffic lanes and thereby creating stopped traffic jams, idling cars, instead of moving vehicles. And removing trees, shrubs, foliage and planting concrete and high density structures boxing the toxins into the area.
4- If the low income youth has a non-working parent at home, there is no need for “drop in facilities”. they can go to the nearest Rec Ctr. if they’re older. Family member can take care of the younger ones.
5- Cut park rangers and watch the homeless take over and trash them. Balboa Park especially.
6- $800K to make dangerous intersections safer? Most accidents happen because one or more people are not looking both ways. No amount of money is going to change their behavior. Will the 800K be for walking monitors to hold their hands when they come to an intersection?
7- I see no reason under the sun for $450K increase in arts funding. That’s another WANT not a NEED.
8- The 1,000 people that are planning a lawsuit because the mayor, city council and department head, didn’t keep Chollas Creek and other areas free of trees, dirt, trash, foliage is totally on management, and $3.1 million will probably not be enough to pay them off. This could have been avoided if Leadership had been listening to their constituents and now it’s going to cause an increase is some kind of tax or fee, because they were asleep on the job? AGAIN?
9- The mayor has no financial savvy and the millions of dollars that have been funding the homeless dog and pony show have not been working. So to give them 8 million is another waste of money.
10- So where is the City going to borrow $25 million from, the retirement account, so they can whine about the retirees debts?
11- If the Leaders of this City did routine maintenance there would be no need for flood prevention. Floods, were cause by management negligence.
12- Whitburn, housing is a human right for those who earn enough money to buy or pay rent. No one owes anyone a house, if they’re able bodied, and of sound mind, they need to be put to work. Work on getting businesses, and industry into SD rather than raise prices of doing business so high they won’t come to provide jobs for the able bodied. Welfare mom’s can run daycares for the working people. Your quick fixes haven’t work so far, why keep doing the same thing and expect a difference? That’s foolish.
13- Find some land for George Mullen’s Sun Break Ranch, and he’s show you all how to triage people, get them off the street, and off of drugs and drink.
14- Why should it cost $91K for software in the City Attorney’s office. Once again the City is getting hustled and ripped off by a flim flam sales(wo)man.
Hey Pat. I think you make some good points, but some others I must insist are not that strong.
Where I agree:
– Cutting park rangers is unacceptable.
– The flooding stuff is of course due to criminal negligence and disregard for those in certain neighborhoods, and due to poor decisions from both electeds and unelected bureaucrats, the tax payers are pating for these errors.
– These electeds talk a whole lot about ficsal responsibility and the issues of their predecessors, without accountability of their own.
– The $91K for software, $800K for intersections, and the $8 mil for “homeless services” are surely all opportunities for either money to be funneled because they’re corrupt, or they’re burning money because they are stupid. Which is worse?
Where I disagree:
– Funding for the arts IS critical. You can argue the amount, perhaps it is too much, but quality of life issues like public parks, beaches, artwork, museums ARE critical for a decent to good city. Cutting these would further our cultural rot in SD.
– The Sun Break Ranch proposal is morally bankrupt. Its a way to shove our homeless off to the edges of the city so we dont have to deal with or see them. Current solutions are not working, and we do need to be creative, but this just isn’t it. Plus, it in the current political climate, most dems realistically would not accept it so our leaders are pushing against it. Its a bad hill to die on. Just being honest.
– As much as I am not a “champion” for public welfare and spending, low income youths and certain individuals NEED the help from the rest of society that they cant get from either a non-existent family, or one that is crippled physically/mentally. Could more people work harder and fend for themselves? Sure. But there are many that cannot, and what shall we do with them? They are currently not out on the street with the rest, but they could easily be soon.
$30 million a year for 1000 homeless beds is felony stupid. Sean may say, “This budget is balanced on the backs of those who have the least,” but who pays the taxes? Homeless sure don’t. Sad, but true. But hey, cut the park rangers. Wasn’t the city buying electric Ford lightnings, mustangs?
City officials also say tax revenues could bounce back if the economy improves or if city voters approve ballot measures this fall that would raise the sales tax and impose a parcel tax for flood prevention.
Hoping for revenues is silly. Trash tax, higher water rates from Todd’s 1.5 billion toilet water program, an electrical utility boondoggle, Ash St, the skydiving father joe’s conversion, dam repairs, housing affordability, and yes, the OB pier.
More taxes please.
These elected officials and their quotes are pathetic.
Great job council stopping the Power SD utility takeover (except for still spending 500K on another study).
How the council identifies 742K due to reduced water at parks is interesting, given that storages are down at several reservoirs while front paying the county water authority.
Next the mega-shelter. If terminated, the housing authority can get its money allocation back.
It’s a very short-sighted decision. And it’s a slap in the face of city residents.
Which decision?
The decision to prevent SD voters from voting on the issue of having a municipal utility, non-profit. And Chris you and I have disagreed over this issue for a couple of years now, so we’ve come to have an agreement over disagreeing.
First, they should have gotten the numbers without needing the city. Shows you right there how weak it was. The union wasn’t onboard, and you know who the city bends to. Power itself did not provide enough information on how this was supposed to work, which ultimately doomed them. You just can’t throw money at everything and hope for the best. Especially this.
Cheers, mi amigo! Not only didn’t they have the union onboard, but the entire county Labor Council is in opposition — something that is contrary to the role of labor in a modern city. The leadership of the Labor Council is beholden to big developers … and SDG&E. It’s shameful.
They are all truly pathetic. Toddy could not balance a budget if his life depended on it. Aren’t they also procrastinating on paying the pensions too or is that part of the 30m in reserve contributions? This budget is all about short term fixes to help make Toddy look better. They can take their proposed tax hikes and shove them.
Todd may be in for a glorious downfall.
Oh my.