Another bloody budget - Page 2

Newsom's latest budget slashes social services and would leave a long legacy of deficits

Mayor Gavin Newsom released his city budget proposal June 1, downplaying its most adverse impacts

Yet Chiu said many of Newsom's assumptions for revenue were on shaky ground, prompting City Controller Ben Rosenfield — Newsom's former budget director — to place $142 million on reserve in case the projected revenues don't pan out.

"These budget deficits continue as far as the eye can see," Chiu noted. "Even if those amounts come in, something like 90 percent of them are one-time fixes. So even if the mayor is right, it doesn't solve next year's problem, or the year after. Which is why many of us at the board believe that we have to consider additional revenue proposals to think about the long-term fiscal health of the city."

Sup. John Avalos, chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, described Newsom's budget as "pretty much an all-cuts budget," noting that he and Chiu planned to introduce revenue-generating measures. They were expected to introduce proposals — including an increase in the hotel tax and a change in the business tax — at the June 8 board meeting.

Because despite Newsom's rosy assessment, many of his proposed cuts are deep and painful: the Recreation and Park Department would be cut by 42 percent (with its capital projects budget slashed by 90 percent), Economic and Workforce Development by 34 percent, Ethics Commission by 23 percent (basically eliminating public financing for candidates), Department of the Environment by 14 percent, Emergency Management by 10 percent, and the list goes on.



Progressives say Newsom's budget reflects skewed priorities. While relatively little is asked of public safety departments, health and human services programs face major staffing and funding losses. "Poor people are being asked to shoulder the burden," noted Jennifer Friedenbach, director of the Coalition on Homelessness.

Nearly $31 million would be slashed from the Department of Public Health, and more than $22 million would be cut from the Human Services Agency under Newsom's proposed budget. While this reflects only 2–3 percent of the departmental budgets, there's widespread concern that the cuts target programs designed to shield the most vulnerable residents.

Proposals that deal with housing are of special concern. "We have more and more families moving into SRO hotel rooms. We have families in garages. We have a really scary situation for many families," Friedenbach said.

Affordable housing programs within the Mayor's Office of Housing would get slashed from $16.8 million currently down to just $1.2 million, a 92 percent cut. Other cuts seem small, but will have big impacts of those affected. Newsom's budget eliminates 42 housing subsidies, which boost rent payments for families on the brink of homelessness, for a savings of $264,000. Meanwhile, a locally funded program that subsidizes housing costs for people with AIDS would be cut, for a savings of $559,000.

Transitional housing would be affected, too, such as 59 beds at a homeless shelter on Otis Street, which Friedenbach says would be lost under Newsom's budget proposal. "We've already lost more than 400 shelter beds since Newsom came to office, so that'd be a huge hit," she said. Since the recession began, she added, the wait-list at shelters has tripled. The Ark House, a temporary housing facility that serves LGBT youth, would also be closed.

Overall, homeless services delivered by HSA would take a $12 million hit in Newsom's budget, or about 13 percent, offset slightly by homeless services being increased by $2 million within the Mayor's Office budget, a 71 percent increase.

Outpatient mental health services, such as Community Behavioral Health Services, would also be affected (See "Cutting from the bottom"), in violation of current city law. Several years ago, then-Sup. Tom Ammiano introduced legislation establishing a "single standard of care" to guarantee access to mental health services for indigent and uninsured residents.


Well, everyone better get used to these budgets because it's going to be much worse next year and the year after. The truth is SF simply can't afford to continue programs and services that are not required by federal or state law. The money is not there and will not be there in the future. Spending $200,000,000 a year on "homeless services" is insane. A very large number of our local "homeless" have no reason to be here in the first place and are going to have to find some other place to fleece. We're out of money. A lot of people used to having the city taxpayers subsidize everything are going to have to either pay for things themselves or find somewhere else that can afford to pay. We can't as we are out of money. A lot of people used to having the city hold their hand as they wander through life are going to have to go it alone. We can't afford it anymore.

There are not going to be new taxes. Not in this economy. SF, like the state, is going to have to learn to live with a lot less government and a lot less services. We're broke.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 09, 2010 @ 9:19 am

Yes, you're right. It's true. We've been living way beyond our means and wasting unsupportable amounts on a luxury we just can't afford any more: the ruling class.

Posted by Michael Lyon on Jun. 13, 2010 @ 3:18 am

Guest, you're right. We're living way beyond our means, wasting unsupportable amounts of money on a luxury we just can't afford any more: the ruling class.

Posted by Michael Lyon on Jun. 13, 2010 @ 3:20 am

Well, Guest, let's work with the scenarios you mentioned. How much money would be left over in the SF budget if first priority is given to mandated programs and services and basic city services? How can it be determined fairly who will benefit from the largesse (such as it is) of government and who must suffer without? I'd welcome a discussion of how and why city government should prioritize in tough economic times that reaches a middle ground between "as little government as possible except for property protection's blank check" and "as many government programs as people ask for."

And please, let's stop using aid for the homeless as the rationale for cutting back on all government social services. That's just an excuse to make one feel less guilty about the Board of Supervisors' making some terrible and painful decisions.

Or we could try to increase the pool of moneys available to city government to make the lives of as many citizens as possible better. If people are willing to buy million dollar condos to live in San Francisco, that says to me they have an equal responsibility to pay their fair share of the city services that make this city such a desirable place to live.

Newsom clearly is not interested in any ideas for solving the city's budget shortfall that doesn't fall somewhere within his agenda. I suspect this year's budget like previous years was crafted after the Mayor had an orgy with his Official Milton Friedman Sex Doll (TM). Because what Newsom wants to do in his budget would have given that vile Chicago Boy economist a good stiffy.

Posted by Peter on Jun. 09, 2010 @ 2:52 pm

With a line like " I suspect this year's budget like previous years was crafted after the Mayor had an orgy with his Official Milton Friedman Sex Doll (TM). " how do you expect us to take anything you say seriously?

Of course, this does help illustrate that the SFBG is priced at exactly the value of its services. The laws of economics prevail.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 11, 2010 @ 7:08 am

This article ignores the elephant in the room -- the City spends way too much on public employee pension costs, healthcare costs, and wages. Until that spending is cut, there is never going to be enough money for the projects cited in the article. And the voters don't want to vote for new taxes when their money is going to finance sweetheart pensions.

Posted by Patrick on Jun. 13, 2010 @ 12:05 pm