ON JUNE 1 , Mayor Gavin Newsom will present his city budget to the Board of Supervisors. You'd think the author of Care Not Cash would be sounding the alarm.

Three years into San Francisco's budget crisis, Newsom should be doing everything in his power to preserve what's left of the services that make up our safety net. But instead of ensuring that $45 million of unanticipated revenue is used to stop devastating cuts to health care and human services, Newsom has proposed using these monies for one-time capital projects. This announcement immediately followed the release of a survey giving his administration low marks on city infrastructure. It's clear he hopes a cash infusion can polish up his image. Welcome to the next generation of San Francisco's gilded age.

Newsom is claiming the city's hot real estate transfer tax as his very own treasure trove of one-time revenue. Too bad Newsom led the charge to oppose Proposition L (an increase in the same tax) in 2002, arguing, "Prop. L is a regressive tax." According to data provided by the controller, the measure to double the transfer tax on properties sold for more than $1 million would have brought in an extra $72.5 million in the current fiscal year, more than enough to prevent the mayor's devastating midyear cuts to health services and kids' programs. But for those of us who worked to pass Prop. L to save important services, Newsom's play to capture real estate transfer revenues for his pet projects comes as a double slap in the face.

Last week, in statements to the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the mayor's budget director asserted that Newsom was committed both to preserving safety-net services for the most needy and to making $30 million to $40 million in service reductions, including public health cuts. But they can't have it both ways. This budget doublespeak is reminiscent of Newsom's approach to Care Not Cash: shift monies from one important program to another, define San Francisco's "deserving poor" in the most narrow way, and then claim you're solving the problem – with the San Francisco Chronicle leading the cheers.

The Board of Supervisors has witnessed a string of department heads lamenting the mayor's midyear cuts: "If only Propositions J and K had passed, then we wouldn't have had to make cuts to services," they all say. There's never a mention of the mayor's lackluster effort to pass the initiatives. And now we have learned that Newsom's backers at the Committee on Jobs are taking credit for killing the measures.

As June draws near, San Franciscans are waiting to see how many proposed cuts will be realized in the mayor's budget. Will Newsom cut funds to – or possibly even close – one of the city's community health clinics or San Francisco General Hospital's dialysis unit? Will he make further cuts to public health nurses? How many more cuts to mental health, substance abuse, AIDS/HIV, and homeless programs? Will Muni riders have to pay more for decreased services? And what about the recreation centers, food programs, immigrant services, and programs for seniors?

Obviously all of these services are more important than filling potholes. The notion of programming General Fund dollars for one-time capital purposes becomes even more absurd when you hear that the Department of Public Works is looking to place a general obligation bond for street resurfacing on November's ballot. These are the types of dollars that should only be available for one-time capital projects.

If Newsom's budget does arrive with significant cuts to vital services, it will once again be up to the Board of Supervisors to try to save them. Along with the usual unturning of every stone to find General Fund monies, our office will be working hard to reprogram Newsom's one-time capital projects to prevent the further erosion of San Francisco's vital, ongoing safety-net services.

Chris Daly represents District 6 in San Francisco. John Avalos is his legislative aide.