Still, Better Off Retired Than on Skid Row

I hate to bunch together unrelated topics, but I’ve got a lot on my mind today, including a few hundred public employees who would like to see me hanged from the top of the Hollywood sign.

Before I get to their complaints about my Sunday column on sweet retirement deals, I’d like to clue you in on a budget-trimming move by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that has skid row service providers in a dither.

Villaraigosa, you may recall, promised to get on top of the mess that festers a few blocks from City Hall, where thousands of homeless, drug-addicted and mentally ill people live in conditions his police chief has called “the worst situation in America.”

“I am going to take on the challenge,” Villaraigosa told me in October.

Sounded good.

But I got hold of the mayor’s budget recommendations for the coming year, and it says he’s aiming to get rid of roughly 200 shelter beds on skid row, shut a Hollywood shelter, dump a planned San Fernando Valley shelter and trim funding for a permanent housing program by 30%.

“I was a little bit shocked when I saw this,” said Orlando Ward of the Midnight Mission, whose executives met Tuesday to discuss the impact of the proposed cuts and come up with a strategy to campaign against them.

Ward said the news was all the more disturbing given the political momentum that appears to be in place, after years of excuses, to get a handle on the homeless problem.

The nearly $2 million worth of cuts, based on diminishing federal funds, would hit the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, which doles out government money to contract agencies.

So what’s up with the mayor?

Villaraigosa was in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, trying to make the city’s case against being stiffed by the feds. But his staff said his proposed cuts were intended to send a message that the homeless services agency needs to do a better job with what it’s got and work more closely with the city on solutions to homelessness. Last year, the city controller took a look at the books and said: “This place is a mess.”

Agency boss Mitchell Netburn told me he’s looking to see what existing funds might be used to cover the shortages, and Villaraigosa Chief of Staff Robin Kramer said the mayor doesn’t want to see any program cuts in the end. She also said a $50-million pledge he made last fall for supportive housing is not in jeopardy.

My pledge is that I’ll be here to make sure Villaraigosa follows through, provided I haven’t been strung up by public employees. But many of them aren’t too pleased with my recent work, or with efforts by Assemblyman Keith Richman (R-Northridge) to trim some of the more outrageous benefits for future -- F-U-T-U-R-E -- employees.

“Next time someone commits a crime against you or your family you should call Assemblyman Richman,” wrote a police officer named Anthony Rodriguez, who thought I should know that cops do more than “sit around and eat bagels and drink Starbucks.... We have been shot, run over, stabbed, dismembered.”

Yes, Officer Rodriguez. I’m aware the job is dangerous, as you must have been aware when you took it. I think I speak for many when I say we appreciate your service.

But I’m not sure taxpayers can afford to continue covering up to 90% of public safety employees’ salary for life, given that in some agencies they can retire as young as 50 and then take another job -- perhaps even another job on the public dime.

“I’ve been a teacher for 15 years now and I’ve worked my way up to the low $60,000s ... AND I HAVE NEVER WORKED SO HARD IN MY LIFE,” wrote Colin F. Van Gorder, a teacher in San Gabriel Unified.

Thank you for your work, Mr. Van Gorder and colleagues. I’m aware that teaching is not easy, the pay is not great, students can be lazy, parents can be dopes, principals can be a pain and teachers occasionally have to reach into their own pockets to cover supplies.

Van Gorder and dozens of other teachers pointed out that not everyone gets the same sweet benefits as Los Angeles Unified School District retirees, who get lifetime healthcare for themselves and their spouses, not to mention for dependents up to age 26.

I’m well aware of that and didn’t mean to imply that all teachers hit the same jackpot, or that all public employees retire to lives of luxury. I think anybody who spent a lifetime punching the clock should have a comfortable retirement.

But at a time when corporate bosses need a good backhand for eliminating or shrinking retirement benefits, the deals on the public side are almost too good to be true, thanks primarily to the scads of Democratic politicians who are bankrolled by the public employee unions.

California’s public retirement packages are among the richest in the nation, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, which points out that many of the promised benefits have not been budgeted and could lead to financial disaster and widespread cuts in services.

The retirement fund that represents 755,000 California teachers, for instance, is underfunded by $23 billion.

The Los Angeles Unified School District would have to put aside $500 million a year, for 30 years, to cover unfunded healthcare guarantees that are projected at a minimum of $5 billion.

Many California employees have their retirement pay based on the single highest year of income, rather than on a several-year average, as in other states. And some are allowed to spike that one year by counting accrued vacation, shift differential, bonuses and promotions. In rare cases, overtime can be factored in.

Under a Richman proposal, public safety employees hired after July 2007 would be eligible for retirement at 55 rather than 50, and other public employees would retire at 65 rather than as young as 55.

All public employees would get a hybrid pension deal that combines fixed benefits with a 401(k)-type plan.

No, it’s not quite as good as the current deals out there. But it’s not so bad that anyone should end up on skid row.

*

Reach the columnist at steve.lopez@latimes.com and read previous columns at latimes.com/lopez.