San Francisco supervisors and nonprofits on Wednesday lambasted Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposed budget cuts to programs for legal aid, financial coaching and “community building,” saying slashing those areas would threaten groups already vulnerable to federal cuts and cost the city more money in the long term.
“How do we prioritize our values?” asked Supervisor Connie Chan, who spoke at a budget committee of the Board of Supervisors. Politics at the state and federal level are “out of control,” she said, referring to sweeping federal cuts to nonprofits.
The city, Chan said, should fill in gaps wherever possible. “It is my opinion that we should protect the most vulnerable, especially at this time.”
But that’s a hard ask: San Francisco is facing an $818 million budget deficit, and Lurie has asked all departments to slash 15 percent across the board. That means cutting programs like those protecting against informal evictions or wage theft from the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, which was in the hot seat on Wednesday.
And the housing office says more cuts are on the way.
“When we have to make reductions in funding, it’s not fun,” said Dan Adams, a director at MOHCD, addressing the supervisors and an overflowing hearing room packed with lawyers, nonprofit workers, and residents who’ve received city services. “These are very difficult decisions to make.”
Lurie has until June 1 to present his budget proposal, and another month after that for it to be ratified. Until then, general civil legal services, community-building programs, and financial-capability services are on the chopping block.
MOHCD says these cuts were determined by a score from surveys of community members on what services they want and reviews of proposals submitted by organizations for funding. These scores are used to determine funding recommendations.
“Does this score really take into account the community that it’s scoring?” Supervisor Joel Engardio asked, to an eruption of applause.
“I hope that you consider funding civil legal service,” he said. “The work that they do is amazing. What civil legal service does is, it provides free legal aid. Legal aid helps you stay in your home and stops you from becoming homeless. In the long run, we’re saving money.”
Some legal aid programs are safe, like those for domestic violence and formal eviction. But MOHCD funds a range of nonprofits that offer “general civil legal services” and would be hurt by the cuts. Earlier this month, Mission Local reported that the cuts to those nonprofits would affect roughly $4.2 million in funding protecting against informal evictions, wage theft, and wrongful foreclosures, for instance.
Lurie is facing mounting pressure from local nonprofits to halt the cuts. Many told supervisors they are being squeezed on both ends: by the White House and by City Hall.
The Asian Women’s Shelter said that on Monday afternoon it received an email that its federal grant would be cut by the Trump administration — about half a million dollars. If it is not awarded funding when it applies to MOHCD again in May, it will face an even greater loss.
The Hype Center, which provides intervention and services for at-risk youth facing sexual exploitation, says its budget will be cut by 85 percent, effectively shutting down the organization.
Adrian Tirtanadi, the executive director of Open Door Legal, argued that homelessness would increase by 4 percent per year if these cuts are implemented, according to its own study. The nonprofit, which provides free legal aid, would be forced to close one of its offices, he said, and lay off an estimated 15 staff members.
Numerous clients who received free legal services lined up at the podium to speak on behalf of free legal aid at the nearly four-hour long meeting. Some had received legal help for job retaliation, others had their locks changed illegally.
“Open Door Legal was able to help me keep my license,” said a limousine driver who nearly lost his job after being sued by a rider. “Without them, I would be homeless on the street.”
MOHCD says that Lurie has given it an additional reduction target of $2.1 million that must be met by the June 1 deadline. When asked if these additional cuts would also impact community programs, Adams replied, “We will do everything we can to make sure that’s not the case.”
Again, if public money is going to be spent anywhere, I’m generally happy for it to go to lawyers. But as a taxpayer, I can think of a lot better uses for limited public funds than paying for the defense lawyer for some limousine driver who is sued by a rider in a civil action for some (alleged) wrongful conduct. That testimony cuts the other way for me, indicating there is fat to be trimmed.
There was a really hilarious version of this PR campaign where the free tenant defense attorneys cited the sob story of some guy they defended. Turned out that guy was living in his girlfriend’s uncle’s house, and the uncle wanted them out because they had moved in during the pandemic at low rents as a favor to the girlfriend who promised she’d leave as soon as she got a job. (She didn’t leave and is slowly taking over the entire building, cue HOA lawsuit. Hopefully she gets some free lawyers to defend against that too!) The guy they defended for free is an entrepreneur and runs a wine bar in Dogpatch. Another example of the tenants they represented for free was someone who does “super high end residential construction.”
I’m sure these people are one eviction away from smoking crack in front of the public library.
So in your view, NOBODY facing eviction is legitimate or deserving of aid?
Where do you people come from?
In my view, if the most sympathetic tenants the free legal aid people can find are these two, then most of the money given to them is wasted.
In addition, there are landlords who are forced to do distressed sales due to nuisance tenants they can’t get out who are more deserving of free legal aid but politics won’t allow for it.
Finally, the legal system is so slow, expensive, and adversarial that the kind of tactics employed by the free legal aid lawyers (nonsense case delaying motions; forcing cases to jury trials to ratchet up plaintiff costs) is arguably unethical.
Better legal systems are driven by judges who can tasked with equitably investigating the truth, not slowly administering a dispute where one side has nothing to lose. That’s a formula for injustice and abuse.
Sure. but this trims all the fat and also the entire steak, ALL of it at once. You support that total decimation of legal aid to people who actually do need representation and totally could never afford it or know where to begin? Let’s get you on record here. There’s fat to be trimmed in everything, but eliminating the entire endeavor is obviously on its face more than trimming waste or belt tightening, or do you disagree?
Good.
What’s stopping the nonprofits from raising the money themselves to fund these efforts?
The need is greater than the donations in the city with the most Billionaires.
San Francisco doesn’t have the most billionaires. You’re probably thinking of a decade old report that couldn’t tell the difference between Atherton and the city.
In addition, there isn’t a chance that a free legal aid clinic makes a difference when you’re being sued by a billionaire. The article cites run of the mill family disputes and the like in which all sides are roughly the same financially.
Pigs at the trough
Of course in the ideal world there would be enough money for all and we would not need it
However , you need to be realistic .
Taxpayers still cannot even get their blocks free of drug dens , encampments and garbage .
Sidewalks remain impassable .
We cannot even have law and order .
Unfortunately, nonprofits have ruined their image . Too much grift .
How much actually has gone to the persons in need of help?
The money goes to staff salaries .
Until nonprofits can be watched closely and not blow taxpayer money , they have lost my vote .
Has anyone heard the word volunteer?
They do volunteer. There is an overwhelming need that far surpasses volunteering efforts because it’s a many many many hour process to help someone foment a legal defense of their rights. Lawyers are hundreds and hundreds of dollars PER HOUR, cases take tens to hundreds of hours. Even someone trying to change the subject like yourself can understand why equal representation under the law is still important.
Austerity budgets are famous for having good outcomes.
Progs were cheering driving out the tax base that led to these budgets. Remember Aaron “we’re begging to let some air out of this economy” Peskin?
The City NEVER should have been in the business of providing “free” legal services. The services are not “free.” We are all paying for them with our taxes. It is time for the bloated City government to go on a diet. The Board of Supervisors has never seen a cause they did not want to fund with other peoples’ money.
This is a trivial amount of money in the city with the most Billionaires in the world. We spend more on marketing for street festivals, literally.
If maybe 2 or 3 percent of the budget was dedicated to solving these issues, there would be a solution, but almost nothing is spent, ppl always blame who can’t defend themselves, cowards and ignoramuses
The politician / nonprofit org axis in San Francisco is incredibly corrupt. All nonprofits need a thorough independent audit to see where the money is actually going.
As a general rule the city should not be taking sides in private disputes and lawsuits between SF residents. And that of course includes funding one side but not the other.
So something like an eviction is simply a dispute between two SF residents, and there is no reason to favour one over the other. Let the courts decide.
SF cannot afford such luxuries in this financial climate. Instead we need to focus on core services like public safety, fixing the roads etc.
Ever been to court, Ed? It’s a serious question to gauge your experience with what you’re basically advocating for, the litigation process. What do you know about it?
Not a lot but a few times, including evictions (on both sides).
So you understand how much it can cost, you understand how technical it can be, and you understand how much more impossible it would be if you’re caring for children, working full time, can barely afford your rent and essentials, English might not be your first language, etc.
And you can just self-lobotomize that thought right out and say nobody deserves or should be helped at all with that process, under any circumstances? Really?
Ed.
If you don’t know what words mean, please don’t just make them up.
I know exactly what words mean “Cynthia”. Did you have an actual point to make? I could not see one there.
Ed, you not understanding something is not the definition of people having a point or not…
And what’s the budget for the police? Is that being cut 15%?
New idea: lawyers in the city (i.e. representing cases in SF Superior Court) must provide 15% of their billable hours to local residents at affordable rates to help with civil legal issues. If landlords can do it, why can’t they?
There’s no fattening to be trimmed problem there’s a revenue problem. The real problem is a lot of stupid people fell for the myth that government can’t provide efficient services so everything has to be for profit or non-profit, but there’s so little oversight when you have private people providing public goods. And there are many examples like excite the government provides much better services than Private industry, and it’s funny how those who are being victimized always get blamed.
Non profits only become necessary because people have been fooled into thinking that the government can’t donate good job at helping people, so you for profit and non profit taking over. There’s not a fat needing to be trimmyproblem, theres
“I entered the mayor’s race not as a politician, but as a dad who couldn’t explain to my kids what they were seeing on our streets,” he said.
“I wanted to see more low income renters who got screwed by dishonest landlords.”
“Meanwhile, who likes this hideous art nobody asked for? Anyone want to buy a mall?”