West Hollywood city officials have decided to remove a requirement that applicants for the city’s new guaranteed income pilot program identify as LGBTQ because it likely violates the California constitution.
City staff will present at City Council’s meeting Monday a revised overview of the program, which will give a limited number of senior WeHo residents a $1,000 no-strings-attached cash stipend every month. The revised program keeps the other three criteria: age, income level and residency.
The dubious legality of the sexual orientation requirement seems to have caught the city off guard, according to the staff report:
In March 2022, the City became aware that the pilot, as it was created and supported by a government entity, was susceptible to legal challenges due to the inclusion of LGBTQIA criteria as an eligibility requirement to participate. Although the City could engage in a legal battle over the contested eligibility requirement, the implications of litigating such a challenge had to be considered.
Having LGBTQIA identification as an eligibility requirement for the pilot could potentially violate the California Constitution as sexual orientation is a protected suspect class in our state. This means that when a law or government-funded program treats persons differently based on sexual orientation, those laws and program are subject to an exacting standard known as strict scrutiny (even if the law is intended to benefit that protected suspect class). Guaranteed income is an emerging area of policy making, with many nuanced components, and there is no direct case law on this issue. However, based on analogous legal situations, negative and unintended outcomes from litigation are probable. On a community level, a decision to engage in a legal battle could have the additional unintended consequence of causing harm to the community members the pilot was created to support.
Therefore, the City Attorney, City staff and pilot partners recommend that the City Council revise the pilot to include three of the four original criteria (residency, age and income level) in order to satisfy the legal obligations, protect potential participants, and move forward with a program that serves community members in need of financial support and stability.
With tremendous collective frustration and disappointment that we are unable to advance the original pilot, City staff and partners are suggesting a modified path forward: to move forward with a revised pilot designed for older adult West Hollywood community members living on a low income.
[…] Jenkins left office we have seen a number of issues skip over the city attorney head including the universal basic income for LGBTQ+ only residents struck down by a judge as […]
[…] as LGBTQ+. Then they realized giving preferential treatment based on sexual orientation was probably a violation of the Constitution. Yikes. Even Bill Maher was at a loss for […]
Not surprised. I wondered how they were going to pull off that obviously discriminatory requirement that some woke idiot dreamed up. Why not just make it available to anyone who meets the income requirement and hold a lottery?
On the agenda tomorrow evening item 2-I on consent recommending $200,000 expenditure to an organization ultimately administering $400,000. for an effort benefitting potentially 25 individuals. The non-profit is believed to be JFS who has an eye popping budget as a “referral service” as per Medical-Cal for senior services. Where does all the money go?
Finally, somebody besides the hired help and freeloaders getting monetary handouts.
Is anyone in West Hollywood officialdom, including the city attorney, versed in the United States Constitution? As in the recent brouhaha over forced pronoun usage in violation of First Amendment free speech rights, this affront to anti-discrimination laws lays bare the naivete of amateurs at the helm of what should be sound municipal governance. One of those amateurs is a member of the California State Bar and presumably knows the Constitution. I doubt previous councilmembers who are also licensed attorneys (Messrs. Duran and Heilman) would have given in to performative wokeness at the cost of adherence to ethical professional behavior.… Read more »
Mr. STrasburg. You a voice of reason. This is a brilliant post.
Get these crazy people out of city hall!
FYI: There are UBI programs in the following states: Illinois, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Carolina, Washington, Colorado, Georgia, Alaska, Louisiana, and New York.
The following California cities/counties have some form of UBI: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Compton, Marin County, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Stockton, and Palm Springs,
The issue is not UBI, it is the non-discriminatory application thereof.
Many people take issue with the idea of UBI in general. It’s all over the comments section when there is an article about this program.
I’m just letting people know it’s not some “woke SHE radical” policy.
Of course it is. It only occurs in woke she radical jurisdictions.
Wow, who knew that so many European countries and U.S. states are all “she radical jurisdictions” lol
it should be LGBTQIASDP
lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, queer, intersex, asexual, straight, disabled, poor!
Too many letters??? I think so too!
I think this is getting ridiculous!
Why can’t we just say EVERYBODY is included and eligible???
duh. Someone gets paid to think these stupid ideas up?
When did West Hollywood become a welfare state? What are the eligibility guidelines for this hand-out? The city is now providing guaranteed income for which will only serve to entice the homeless to West Hollywood. The city council won’t address homelessness, won’t put sheriff’s on the streets to protect those that can afford to live here. If this city to follow through and finish the projects it starts (ie: Weho park is still not fully open, but a haven for the homeless) maybe there’d be some cash left over to protect the citizens with law enforcement and find a solution… Read more »
Since this new regime took over our city. VOTE. THEM. OUT. (and don’t replace them with more of the same mindset).
Yes! They all need to go.
This was a foolish idea to begin with. The proponents apparently didn’t realize the red flag and thought they could simply introduce a new type of discrimination disguised as benevolence. The actions of the current city attorney are questionable. With City Atty Mike Jenkens, at least he openly admitted he was making things up as he went along challenging the courts to prove otherwise. Atty. Langer does not appear alert.
The actual intent of Universal Basic Income is that there are no requirements. UNIVERSAL. The intent is that all citizens receive it. Young/old, rich/poor, male/female, etc — Universal Basic Income
I think this was a pilot program to target people that were most at risk for poverty here in West Hollywood (50+ LGBT folks)
Right; this is NOT meant to be Universal Basic Income; it is meant to only help people in very desperate need.