It will be a while before anyone drills down into the details of the mayor’s budget plan. It’s 343 pages, and most reporters so far have just outlined the press statements.
But the patterns that will shape this document, and Lurie’s legacy, are pretty clear.
A budget is a statement of policy priorities. Here’s what this budget does—and what the Lurie Administration has made its top priority:
—It pours money into public safety, particularly law enforcement. Every major program area will face cuts, except the cops, the district attorney, the sheriff, and the public defender (you can’t keep arresting people if you don’t provide them defense lawyers; it’s a Constitutional right).
—It pours money into keeping the streets clean.
—It cuts deeply into contracts with nonprofits that provide essential services to vulnerable populations.
Here’s what it doesn’t do:
—It seeks no new revenue, and does nothing to address economic inequality. (The only exception: “fee increases” for departments that charge fees.) It allows the very, very rich and big corporations to enjoy their Trump tax breaks while federal money to the city vanishes.
—It does not change the position of former Mayor London Breed that money raised from high-end real estate sales, approved by the voters for affordable housing, can be diverted to things like police overtime. Prop. I, approved in 2020, has already brought in $500 million that was supposed to go for social housing; not a penny has been budgeted for that priority.
—It continues to set aside money to pay big tech companies more than $300 million if they win their tax appeals, which means Lurie has put no pressure on Airbnb to drop its claim.
—It does not prioritize Muni, which is facing a massive deficit. Muni will have 345 fewer positions in the next budget.
It’s important to look not just at spending numbers but at positions, because every department faces salary increases every year under union contracts. Most department budgets are actually a bit higher than last year—but that doesn’t mean they are getting more resources. It could mean the opposite.
The deficit is calculated on the assumption that all the existing labor agreements remain in effect, which means increases in salaries for almost every city employee. A flat budget for a department is in reality a significant cut.
Lurie hasn’t made clear what nonprofit contracts he will cut or reduce. While the local labor movement has pushed back against layoffs of city workers, nonprofits (some of them unionized) also employ workers, and cuts to them will lead to layoffs.
This will all come out in more detail as the Budget and Appropriations Committee scrutinizes the budget. But the supes will have only limited ability to make changes: Most years, the Budget and Legislative Analyst finds savings in the mayor’s proposal, and the supes seek to reallocate that money—tens of millions, but not hundreds of millions—to critical services. At lot of that money tends to be budgeted but unfilled positions—but this year, Lurie is cutting those in advance. So it will be harder for the supes to find addback money.
The budget is designed to be a blueprint for two years. Thanks to California law, there’s no way the city can increase taxes this year; that almost always requires a vote of the people. But if the mayor and the supes were serious about backfilling Trump’s cuts with taxes on the rich, they could bake that into the second year of the budget, prepare now for the ballot battle, and begin today asking the state Legislature to enable more progressive local taxes.
Or, we can live with austerity while the rich keep getting richer.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee will hold a hearing Thursday/5 on the allegations of financial mismanagement at the San Francisco Parks Alliance and the impact that’s had on city agencies.
Sups. Jackie Fielder and Shamann Walton called for the hearing, and have asked the Recreation and Parks Department, as well as the Parks Alliance, to appear and answer questions.
Among the issues that should, and I suspect will, come up: What role has Rec-Park Director Phil Ginsburg played in the management, direction, financing, and operations of the private alliance? What did he know about the current mess, and when did he know it?
For years, Ginsburg has used the Parks Alliance as a sort of private slush fund, a way to raise money from rich donors for parks projects without having to go through the city budget process. He’s also been at the very least a close party to, if not an active participant in, using Parks Alliance money to threaten an elected official.
The Parks Alliance was directly involved in the Mohammed Nuru scandal, according to the city controller, and nobody has asked what, if anything, Ginsburg knew about that pay-to-play deal.
Of course, the Parks Alliance said it was shocked, shocked to learn about the Nuru allegations:
“Like everyone, we were outraged to learn of the public corruption in our local government,” Becher said, in a statement. “We did not benefit in any way nor had any control over the donations that Nuru and Public Works solicited and directed to the sub-account, as the report states. We are a trusted partner to many community groups and city departments and welcome any and all actions that bring more transparency and oversight to ensure the public’s trust.”
And now, Ginsburg says he was shocked, shocked to hear about the mismanagement at the private outfit:
“At the end of the day, we were lied to,” Ginsburg told the Chronicle in a statement. “I am infuriated that the Parks Alliance mismanaged donor funds on city projects and betrayed the trust of small community partners working their tails off to make our parks better.”
Maybe so. But the supes can ask some important questions here: How often did Ginsburg speak to the Parks Alliance leadership? What role did he have in directing money to or from the organization? How is it possible that an agency director who clearly had very close ties to this operation was completely in the dark about what was going on?
How much did the Breed Administration know?
The organization’s tax returns are public record. They show a loss of $5 million on $9 million revenue in 2022. How did nobody notice this?
The Parks Alliance and its scandals are part of the reason the voters passed the Behested Payments Ordinance, making it difficult for public officials like Nuru to shake down businesses for donations to groups like this one. Lurie has been asking for sweeping exemptions from that law, and the supes have gone along.
I suspect there’s a lot more here. That hearing starts at 10am.
