XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: pelosi.toilet@sanfrancisco.com   
      
   So, wealthy Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie is mayor-elect. His wish to   
   lead San Francisco has come to pass, the newest ballot returns show.   
      
   Congratulations, said outgoing Mayor London Breed. Here’s the key to the   
   broken-down house. The roof is about to collapse, there’s mold in the   
   furniture, no one paid the electric bill, and there’s a crazy guy who just   
   moved in down the street who’s threatening to light the whole place on   
   fire.   
      
   To wit: Lurie is inheriting San Francisco’s $800 million budget deficit,   
   an outgoing gift Breed wrapped in a bow and left on his doorstep.   
      
   Perhaps even more daunting: at least $400 million of San Francisco’s   
   annual budget comes from the federal government, the purse-strings of   
   which will soon be held by president-elect Donald Trump.   
      
   And just in case anyone hasn’t heard, he isn’t exactly the biggest fan of   
   San Francisco.   
      
   San Francisco’s downtown offices have emptied out post-pandemic, blowing a   
   hole in the city’s tax revenue wider than the Golden Gate Bridge. Breed   
   tackled the budget earlier this year to much fanfare, but the devil in the   
   details may flame Lurie from the start.   
      
   The controller’s office did not answer a request for comment in time for   
   publication. Breed’s office was tied up with a concession announcement at   
   the time of this writing.   
      
   But in its annual revenue letter — perhaps better known as the “we told   
   you so” screed — the controller’s office noted much of this year’s budget   
   “relies heavily on one-time sources to balance the budget” and that   
   policymakers will need to “consider options for constraining cost growth.”   
   Depletion of rainy day reserves, wage freezes, staff furlough days and   
   service reductions are all tools in the toolkit, they said.   
      
   But, ultimately, the controller cautioned that the city’s $16 billion   
   budget faces structural problems. Translation? We spend more than we earn.   
   And that means an experienced budget surgeon needs to start making cuts.   
      
   Lurie’s opponents derided his lack of government experience, calling him   
   the ultimate “nepo baby.” His resume mostly consists of capitalizing on   
   his personal fortune and connections to wealthy elites to start a   
   nonprofit, Tipping Point Community, that disbursed dollars to anti-poverty   
   groups. He’ll now go from leading a group with roughly 50 employees to one   
   with more than 36,000.   
      
   In a way, San Francisco has been here before – Frank Jordan was police   
   chief when he won San Francisco’s mayor race in 1991, with no experience   
   building a City Hall budget. Former city controller Ed Harrington had a   
   front row seat, serving as San Francisco’s chief accounting officer from   
   1991 to 2008.   
      
   There is a silver lining, Harrington said, though it is the tiniest sliver   
   of one. Many elected officials find themselves trigger-shy at cutting   
   departments. They know that axing 10% of the Department of Public Health’s   
   budget will mean, say, a particular outreach program on flu shots may get   
   the boot. And cutting 5% from the department of homelessness may mean   
   fewer people living on the streets will get connected to, say, dental   
   services.   
      
   Lurie may not have that problem.   
      
   “In some ways, not knowing shit makes it easier to make budget decisions.   
   You don’t have to know or care what the effect is,” Harrington said. “It’s   
   horrible from a service perspective, it’s amazing from a budget   
   finalization perspective.”   
      
   During his mayoral term, Jordan infamously called on all departments to   
   make 10% cuts to close a $150 million budget gap — promising it would   
   happen without reducing services.   
      
   It didn’t quite happen that way, Harrington recalled. But when the streets   
   didn’t get clean because the money wasn’t there, Jordan could easily claim   
   it wasn’t his fault. Jordan just told them to make cuts. Any service   
   impacts were the fault of department heads’ choices.   
      
   “That was a chicken shit way to do it,” Harrington said.   
      
   While Lurie repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he is not a “City   
   Hall insider,” he’s going to need them if he’s going to pull the budget   
   together in one piece, Harrington said. Without experienced hands at the   
   wheel, department heads are known to present budget cuts that they know   
   city leaders will essentially be pressured to reverse.   
      
   For instance, Harrington said, the police budget might show 10% cuts on   
   paper. Overtime? Sure, we’ll snip it out. But when a dignitary visits —   
   like say, President Trump — is the mayor going to tell the police they   
   can’t provide a motorcade because it wasn’t in their budget?   
      
   “You’re going to have a hard time knowing who to trust” when taking office   
   as a newcomer, Harrington said. “If [departments] want to sabotage you,   
   they’re expert at that.”   
      
   Speaking of Trump, he is, of course, the wild card in this massive budget.   
      
   In his first term in office, Trump threatened to cut federal spending from   
   sanctuary cities, including San Francisco, which a federal court   
   ultimately halted. He also used the specter of homelessness to threaten   
   Environmental Protection Agency funding, crowing that used needles were   
   polluting the ocean. Federal disaster aid was also on Trump’s chopping   
   block.   
      
   Newsom has already announced a state disaster aid fund – just in case. And   
   California Attorney General Rob Bonta is gearing up his legal team to   
   defend California cities against Trump incursions.   
      
   San Francisco’s vulnerability to federal mucking is vast: The city   
   controller’s letter from earlier this year warns of “federal revenue   
   risk,” with $570 million of reimbursements anticipated from FEMA for   
   pandemic relief, and $21 million incurred for 2023 winter storms.   
      
   Harrington is less worried about things like disaster relief. Not only is   
   Newsom already moving to protect California, but it’s a politically   
   undesirable type of undercutting.   
      
   “What’s important to look back on is what he said versus what he actually   
   interfered with. He went on and on about screwing us. But when we wanted   
   FEMA money, we got FEMA money,” he said. “It’s hard to screw with people   
   at that level.”   
      
   San Francisco has another glaring vulnerability Mayor Lurie will need to   
   watch out for: mass transit.   
      
   Large-scale projects rely heavily on federal grants, which have far more   
   largesse than a city can muster. The Central Subway, for instance, netted   
   nearly $1 billion in the federal new starts program. Even in normal times,   
   that needed a political push for approval.   
      
   “If [House Speaker Emerita Nancy] Pelosi had not been there with real   
   clout, would we have done as well on the Central Subway, that goes nowhere   
   and carries no one? Probably not,” Harrington said.   
      
   While there are many people in Chinatown who would disagree it carries no   
   one, few would disagree that Pelosi’s political weight helps defend San   
   Francisco on the federal level. But Trump’s feud with Pelosi has also   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)