Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass recently revised her decision regarding the compensation for her wildfire recovery adviser, Steve Soboroff, after widespread backlash. Initially, it was reported that Soboroff, a seasoned real estate developer and civic leader, would be paid $500,000 for a three-month stint as the city’s “chief recovery officer.” This news was first highlighted by the Los Angeles Times, sparking immediate concerns among residents and local officials.
In a swift move, Mayor Bass backtracked on her initial plan, stating that Soboroff would now take on the role without any financial compensation, ensuring that his work would not distract from the critical recovery efforts following the recent wildfires that devastated parts of Los Angeles. Bass mentioned in a statement, “Steve is always there for LA. I spoke to him today and asked him to modify his agreement and work for free. He said yes.” This change comes amid rising frustration over perceived excessive spending during a time when the city is still grappling with the aftermath of natural disasters.
Along with Soboroff, Randy Johnson, another veteran in real estate, was set to receive $250,000 from philanthropic organizations for assisting in the recovery efforts. Following Bass’s decision to cancel Soboroff’s fee, Johnson also agreed to work without pay. The Mayor expressed her appreciation for Johnson’s willingness to step back from the financial arrangement, but further details about the charitable funding sources were not disclosed.
City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, who is part of the committee overseeing the recovery, voiced her outrage over the original compensation proposal, labeling the $750,000 paid to the two advisors as “obscene.” Her reaction resonated with many residents who feel that money spent on recovery should be carefully managed, especially in light of the community’s ongoing struggles.
Adding to the growing discontent, Ric Grenell, a former envoy for President Donald Trump, criticized the idea of such high compensation tied to charity work. He took to social media to express his disbelief, questioning how this could be labeled as charity work. “I’m getting paid $0 – as are many people. It’s a good thing there will be strings on the Federal money for California,” Grenell remarked, reflecting sentiments shared by many taxpayers who expect accountability in how recovery funds are utilized.
Residents directly affected by the wildfires also shared their frustration. Larry Vein, whose property was damaged, stated that no one should profit from recovery efforts, emphasizing that the focus should remain on community rebuilding rather than financial gain. Similarly, Steve Danton, who has been living in temporary accommodation after losing his home in the Palisades Fire, condemned the situation as a “money grab,” pointing to a leadership crisis within the city.
Despite the backlash, Soboroff defended his initial compensation, arguing that the work he takes on is significant and complex, requiring communication with federal agencies and coordination of extensive recovery efforts. He pointed out that he had been involved in various civic projects for over three decades, often without pay, but acknowledged that the current situation demanded a more structured approach.
Soboroff stated, “At the end of the day, I’m doing the stuff that all these other people are just studying. I’m implementing to help people reach their goals of getting back in their houses and getting their jobs back.” His emphasis on hands-on involvement reflects a deep commitment to the recovery process, but the question remains whether such a role should come at such a steep price, even if initially proposed by supporters from charitable organizations.
In the wake of the uproar, it is clear that the Los Angeles community seeks reassurance that their recovery efforts are being managed with transparency and accountability. As the city faces the daunting task of rebuilding after devastating wildfires, it is crucial to ensure that the focus remains on helping residents recover, rather than on financial arrangements that could undermine public trust.
