HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/20/2021 Item 10, Perinich
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Hannah Perinich <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:2021-2022 Budget Proposal
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council Members,
I thank you for all of the hard work you’ve put in over the last few months, especially now reading the proposed
2021-2022 budget. It takes a lot of time and effort to implement such a proposal, and I appreciate your attention to
such an important matter. The budget, as you know, shapes the lives of our citizens and either makes or breaks the
general health and well being of all community members. Though there are good points in the city budget, I write
to you to point out areas that do not benefit all community members, specifically our unhoused citizens and
citizens of color.
The Strategic Budget Direction Report acknowledges a Major City Goal (MCG) to “advance the
recommendations of the DEI Task Force” with the expectation to “Involve marginalized communities and
diverse voices in program development and delivery to ensure current lived experiences are understood,
priorities are addressed, and the City’s efforts are relevant and meaningful.” Though the the statement
itself is meaningful, I argue that the proposed budget does not reflect the goals of the previous statement.
A significant factor of the budget that does not serve marginalized communities is the DEI Budget. Though
the creation of a DEI Team and budget is significant, the allocation of funds are insufficient in serving
communities of color. In fact, most of the DEI proposed spending points were not discussed by the DEI
Task Force. The following are the funds posted under DEI:
$300,000 for Cheng Park and Mission Plaza capital improvements;
$100,000 for a design study for remodeling fire stations;
$40,000 for ADA Transition Plan Implementation;
$35,000 for state-mandated police training and data collection.
I understand that the developmental improvements of Cheng Park and Mission Plaza, along with ADA
mandates were not discusses by the DEI Task Force, nor do these improvements necessarily benefit
people of color in San Luis Obispo. I argue that these items be allocated to another sector of the budget,
leaving DEI’s budget at the decision of the Task Force.
Additionally, the allocation of $35,000 to police within a DEI budget is damaging and represents an
opposite goal of what marginalized communities are demanding. After we witnessed the violence that
1
police held against peaceful, unarmed protestors last summer, many of whom were Black, how can we as
a community allocate Diversity Equity and Inclusion money to a system that deliberately damages
communities of color? I argue that we do not allocate DEI money to police, do not increase the police
budget, and allow the DEI task force to decide what that money will go towards.
An example of what the DEI task force did discuss but was not clearly on the budget is the Multicultural
Center. A center such as this one would provide a safe space for citizens of color amidst a predominantly
white community. Though the DEI task force discussed this in great length, only $5,000 is being allocated
for a “feasibility study”. Real action, not a study, should be performed for marginalized individuals amongst
community members who lack empathy and understanding of their lived experiences. Allocating the
$35,000 in police funds to a Multicultural Center would directly benefit community members of color and
provide them with a space to feel comfortable in this overwhelmingly white community.
Additionally, I noticed that the DEI budget would decrease by 16% over 2021-2022, while SLOPD’s
budget would increase by 12% over the same time period. I must ask, why would we think that it’s fit to
decrease the DEI budget after just a year? Do we think that the discrimination that marginalized
community members face will decrease over that amount of time? The answer is no, meaning that the
DEI budget should at least stay the same, if not increase after its first year, to create a more welcoming
and stable environment for our community members of color. After witnessing the violence against
marginalized community members by SLOPD just last summer, I find it appalling that their budget should
find an increase in these next two years while the DEI budget is decreased. Comparing these budgets
side by side begs the question of what SLO values more: the protection of the status quo or the protection
of marginalized community members. I ask, which is more important to the us?
To create a more welcoming, empathetic, safe community for all, I urge you to revise the proposed budget
with a different perspective. The proposed budget does not serve all community members, and speaking
with community members who are most marginalized will create a sound budget. Acknowledging and
listening to the DEI Task Force and their recommendations are essential to creating a DEI budget that
benefits marginalized citizens. Removing SLOPD from the DEI budget (along with Economic Recovery
Item 1.4.) while not increasing their current budget is essential to creating a safer environment for all.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email, and I hope that we can work together to create a SLO that
we’re all proud to live in.
Sincerely,
Hannah Perinich
Student, Worker, Concerned Citizen
2