Los Angeles Mayor Reverses Decision on $500,000 Payment to Wildfire Recovery Czar

A Sudden Backtrack Amid Public Outcry

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass faced significant backlash on Saturday, January 20, after reports surfaced that her newly appointed wildfire recovery czar, Steve Soboroff, was set to receive $500,000 for just 90 days of work. Soboroff, a well-known real estate developer and civic official, was tapped by Bass on January 17 to lead the city’s recovery efforts following devastating wildfires. Initially, the compensation was to be covered by undisclosed philanthropic organizations, drawing immediate criticism from the public and officials alike. By Saturday evening, Bass reversed course, announcing that Soboroff would now take on the role without pay.

In a statement, Bass explained that she asked Soboroff to reconsider his compensation, emphasizing the importance of avoiding distractions from the critical recovery work. Soboroff agreed, reflecting his long-standing commitment to the city. However, the initial plan to pay Soboroff and another aide, Randy Johnson, a combined $750,000 sparked outrage, with many calling the amounts excessive and inappropriate for a role tied to public service and charitable efforts.

Public and Political Backlash Over Compensation

The Los Angeles Times first broke the story, revealing that Soboroff’s $500,000 payment and Johnson’s $250,000 compensation were to be funded by philanthropic groups. While Bass’s office declined to name the organizations or provide details on how the funds were raised, the revelation quickly drew criticism from City Council members and residents. Los Angeles City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, a member of the five-person committee overseeing the recovery efforts, called the payments “infuriating” and “obscene,” questioning the use of charitable funds for such high sums.

Joining the chorus of criticism was Ric Grenell, former President Donald Trump’s special envoy, who condemned the compensation on social media. Grenell, who attended a recent roundtable discussion in Pacific Palisades alongside Trump, wrote, “He’s getting paid $500,000 for 3 months of work? And they call this a charity. Gross. Offensive.” Grenell contrasted Soboroff’s compensation with his own unpaid role, adding, “It’s a good thing there will be strings on the Federal money for California.” His comments reflected broader public sentiment, as many Californians expressed frustration over what they perceived as a misuse of resources during a time of crisis.

Soboroff Defends His Role and Compensation

Soboroff, who has a long history of civic involvement, including volunteer roles on the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners and the Department of Recreation and Parks, defended the $500,000 payment. He argued that his expertise and the scope of his responsibilities justified the compensation. Soboroff emphasized that he was not taking the role for personal gain but to address the city’s urgent needs, including coordinating with federal agencies and advising on the replacement of damaged infrastructure.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Soboroff stated, “I’ve been doing this for 35 years for free on some of the biggest civic projects for the city of Los Angeles. But nobody ever asked me to drop everything. This time they did.” He clarified that he agreed to take the role on the condition that his pay would not come from city funds or wildfire survivors. Soboroff also highlighted his hands-on approach, saying, “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.”

Residents Condemn Compensation as a "Money Grab"

Despite Soboroff’s defense, many Los Angeles residents expressed outrage over the initial compensation plan. Larry Vein, a Pacific Palisades homeowner whose property suffered smoke damage, called Soboroff’s $500,000 payment “Wrong on every level,” saying, “No one should be making money off of a disaster.” Steve Danton, a resident who lost his home in the Palisades Fire and is now living in a temporary apartment in Marina del Rey, echoed similar sentiments, describing the payment as a “money grab” and criticized the city’s leadership for prioritizing financial deals over the needs of affected communities.

Danton’s comments reflect a broader sense of mistrust among residents, many of whom feel that city officials are out of touch with the struggles of everyday Angelenos. As the city works to rebuild and recover, the controversy over Soboroff’s compensation has reignited debates about transparency, accountability, and the ethical use of charitable funds.

Bass Announces Soboroff Will Work for Free

In response to the mounting criticism, Bass announced that Soboroff would lead the recovery efforts without pay. Soboroff agreed to the request, aligning with Bass’s assertion that the focus should remain on helping affected communities rather than personal compensation. Bass expressed gratitude for Soboroff’s willingness to serve, stating, “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.” Similarly, Randy Johnson, who was initially set to receive $250,000 for his role assisting Soboroff, also agreed to work pro bono.

While the decision to scrap the payments has been met with approval from some, others remain skeptical. Critics argue that the initial plan to use philanthropic funds for such high payments raises questions about the transparency of the mayor’s office and the influence of wealthy donors in public affairs. The episode has also sparked calls for greater oversight of how charitable funds are allocated during crises, ensuring that resources reach those in need rather than being diverted for administrative or consulting fees.

Reflections on Leadership and Accountability

The controversy surrounding Soboroff’s compensation has broader implications for how Los Angeles handles crises and the role of public and private funding in recovery efforts. While Soboroff’s expertise and willingness to serve are widely acknowledged, the initial decision to pay him and Johnson highlighted a disconnect between the city’s leadership and the public it serves. Many residents feel that the focus should remain on providing direct assistance to wildfire survivors rather than compensating high-profile consultants.

The reversal of the compensation plan demonstrates the power of public scrutiny and the importance of accountability in government. However, it also raises questions about how the city will attract and retain top talent for critical roles without offering competitive compensation. As Los Angeles navigates this challenge, the mayor’s office will need to strike a balance between leveraging private sector expertise and maintaining the trust of the public.

In the end, the episode serves as a reminder of the delicate interplay between public service, private funding, and community expectations. As Los Angeles works to rebuild and recover, the city’s leadership must prioritize transparency, fairness, and a unwavering commitment to the people most affected by the wildfires.