It was clear from Friday’s debate over Mayor Todd Gloria’s proposed budget that city councilmembers remain dissatisfied that some of the inevitable spending cuts hit programs built to support the city’s least fortunate.
“This budget is balanced on the backs of those who have the least,” Council President Sean Elo-Rivera said.
Gloria said he proposed those cuts to close a $137 million deficit. But that budget would eliminate a program designed to help people charged with cannabis crimes enter the legal weed market. It clawed-back shareholder money from San Diego Gas and Electric promised toward underserved communities on the front lines of climate change. And it didn’t include money for a program to support flood victims from the Jan. 22 storms that wiped-out whole streets of homes – most of those families are still displaced.
- Most City Councilmembers want to direct $3 million to help flood victims. Councilmember Henry Foster III, who represents southeastern San Diego neighborhoods deeply impacted by the downpour, said he pressed Gloria’s office to allocate Community Equity Funds to the cause last month. Councilmember Joe LaCava argued the city should direct the cash as soon as possible – before the new fiscal year starts in July.
- At least four council members wanted to restore money Gloria struck for the final phase of a study on how the city could take over its electric grid from San Diego Gas and Electric. Gloria’s budget actually emptied the entire savings account the city set up to bank funds for a potential future where San Diego wants to buy-out the privately-maintained grid and form its own electric utility. Councilmen Kent Lee, Foster III, Sean Elo-Rivera (who voted for reupping the city’s contract with SDG&E and Joe LaCava (who voted against the contract) say those funds should stay put.
- The fate of Housing Commission funding that made headlines this budget season isn’t entirely clear. Multiple councilmembers said they are concerned about the mayor’s proposal to pull funding for affordable housing projects to avoid some cuts but there wasn’t clear consensus on what they’ll do. There was also some discussion of other program cuts without clear consensus. What is clear: A City Council majority wants to direct more cash to a much-lauded homelessness prevention program that under the current budget couldn’t take new clients.
- Multiple councilmembers made it clear they think the city needs more shelter beds but interestingly, the mayor’s mega shelter proposal didn’t get much airtime – and thus, where it stands in the city’s budget remains unclear. Councilmember Vivian Moreno argued the $1.9 million now allocated for the plan should be directed elsewhere and Elo-Rivera suggested the City Council approve Kettner Boulevard and Vine Street shelter funding with a condition that it could be used to fund other homelessness programs, including other potential shelter sites, if the shelter doesn’t move forward by a certain date.
The Union Tribune rounded up more budget takeaways from Friday’s hearing here. Among them: Councilmembers’ commitment to youth drop-in centers.
“This budget is balanced on the backs of those who have the least,” Council President Sean Elo-Rivera said.
Are the homeless paying taxes Sean? When the city wants to further erode affordability by more taxes.
We don’t need funds to take over the electric grid with a flawed plan, as much as we don’t need to spend millions to figure out the new trash tax. Keep the city out of the real estate business first.
I hope you continue to push Council members to state what programs they want to cut instead of the one’s the mayor proposed. It’s pretty easy to complain about the budget, but some hard decisions are going to have to be made.
Illegal Aliens? Equity?
I am most disappointed with Councilmember Whitburn for failing to advocate for key social equity programs, including the cannabis social equity program.
In an interview from 2020, when Mr. Whitburn was running for City Council, he described his experiences attending local planning groups and the overwhelming support for cannabis retail outlets he received from residents, particularly medical cannabis patients.
Mr. Whitburn stated that if people have to go out of their way to access legal cannabis, like in District 3, where 77% of residents voted in favor of cannabis legalization, “it’s not really as accessible as we need it to be.” Regarding social equity, he also stated that “there is no question that we need to advance social equity and that we have a responsibility to ensure that some of the folks who were most negatively impacted by inequitable policies have a real opportunity to start a business.”
Just last year, Mr. Whitburn faced criticism over his rushed handling of a cannabis program that would have done the exact same thing as the cannabis social equity program by expanding the number of retail licenses, but without the social equity component. His former Chief of Staff, Jesus Cardenas, was also found guilty of taking money from the cannabis industry. Truthfully, his lack of advocacy around the cannabis social equity program, including the no vote he cast on Budget Principle 3 several weeks ago, speaks volumes.
With regards to cannabis social equity, one need only follow the money.
The phrase “cannabis social equity” is a wonderful talking point to explain the significant difference between Democrats and Republicans. Now if I say I have a right to keep and bear arms, nobody, not even republicans, expects other taxpayers to buy me a gun or ensure that I have access to one. However now that psychoactive cannabis is legal, Democrats believe that taxpayers have some obligation to ensure that everyone has access to it? What nonsense. If you want it get a job and pay for it. If you have to drive a little farther than others do, too bad! Taxpayers are under no obligation to pay more taxes so that someone else can exercise a right. Next thing you know some of these people will be talking about cannabis deserts! Oh, the horror that some communities don’t have easy enough access to MJ.