Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass faced a public backlash over the weekend after it was reported that Steve Soboroff, her handpicked wildfire recovery czar, was set to earn $500,000 for just 90 days of work. Soboroff, a well-known real estate developer and civic leader, was tasked with overseeing the city’s recovery efforts following devastating wildfires. However, the hefty compensation, which was to be funded by charity organizations, sparked outrage among residents, city officials, and even political figures. By Saturday evening, Bass had reversed course, announcing that Soboroff would now serve in the role without pay. "Steve is always there for LA," Bass said. "I spoke to him today and asked him to modify his agreement and work for free. He said yes. We agree that we don’t need anything distracting from the recovery work we’re doing."
The controversy began when the Los Angeles Times revealed Soboroff’s compensation package on Saturday morning. The $500,000 sum, which worked out to roughly $5,555 per day, was criticized as excessive, particularly given the dire circumstances faced by wildfire victims. Another individual, Randy Johnson, a longtime real estate executive, was also initially set to receive $250,000 from philanthropic groups for assisting Soboroff. However, Bass announced that Johnson, too, would now volunteer his services. While the mayor expressed gratitude for Johnson’s "generosity and expertise," her office declined to disclose which charities were involved or how the funds were raised, raising further questions about transparency.
The backlash against the compensation arrangement was swift and widespread. Los Angeles City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, who sits on the five-person committee overseeing recovery efforts, called the $750,000 total for Soboroff and Johnson "obscene" and "infuriating." Rodriguez argued that the funds could have been better spent on direct aid for affected residents. Her sentiments were echoed by many in the community, including Pacific Palisades resident Larry Vein, whose home sustained smoke damage in the fires. "No one should profit from recovery efforts," Vein said, adding that the situation highlighted a "crisis of leadership" in the city.
Steve Danton, another resident who lost his home in the Palisades Fire and is now living in a temporary apartment, called Soboroff’s compensation a "money grab." He criticized the city for prioritizing high-paying roles for well-connected individuals while many residents struggled to access basic resources. Even political figures weighed in, with Ric Grenell, a former envoy for special missions under President Donald Trump, denouncing the arrangement on social media. "He’s getting paid $500,000 for 3 months of work? And they call this a charity. Gross. Offensive," Grenell wrote. He also took a swipe at California’s leadership, noting that federal funds for recovery would come with "strings attached."
Despite the criticism, Soboroff defended the original compensation plan earlier on Saturday. He emphasized his extensive experience in civic projects and the significant responsibilities he had taken on, including coordinating with federal agencies and advising the mayor on key recovery initiatives. "I’ve been doing this for 35 years for free on some of the biggest civic projects for the city of Los Angeles," Soboroff told the Times. "But nobody ever asked me to drop everything. This time they did." He added that he had agreed to the role on the condition that his pay would not come from city funds or wildfire survivors, arguing that his expertise and dedication justified the cost.
By the end of the day, however, Soboroff had agreed to work for free, a decision that appeared to calm some of the furor. In explaining his change of heart, Soboroff noted that he had already taken significant steps to support recovery efforts, including fielding questions from thousands of residents, proposing changes to the city’s permitting process, and recommending the hire of an outside project manager to oversee infrastructure repairs. "At the end of the day, I’m doing the stuff that all these other people are just studying," he said. "I’m implementing to help people reach their goals of getting back in their houses and getting their jobs back." While Soboroff’s willingness to forgo payment may have mitigated the immediate backlash, the controversy has raised larger questions about accountability, transparency, and the allocation of resources in times of crisis.
