Los Angeles wildfire czar’s $500K paycheck for 90 days of work draws swift blowback, mayor reverses course

Amid growing public outcry and criticism, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has reversed her decision to pay Steve Soboroff, her appointed wildfire recovery czar, a whopping $500,000 for just 90 days of work. Soboroff, a well-known real estate developer and civic figure, was initially set to receive the lucrative sum from charity organizations to oversee the city’s wildfire recovery efforts. However, after a wave of backlash from city officials, residents, and even former Trump envoy Ric Grenell, Bass announced that Soboroff would now work pro bono. This sudden about-face highlights the intense scrutiny and criticism that arose over the high compensation package, which many deemed excessive and tone-deaf given the dire circumstances of wildfire victims.

The controversy began when the Los Angeles Times revealed on Saturday that Soboroff, tapped by Bass for the role on January 17, was set to earn $500,000 over three months. This sum was to come from philanthropic groups, not city funds, but the arrangement quickly sparked outrage. Many argued that such a high payment for temporary work was inappropriate, especially when thousands of Angelenos were struggling to recover from devastating wildfires. Adding to the furor, another official, Randy Johnson, a real estate executive assisting Soboroff, was also set to receive $250,000 from charitable sources. However, Bass later announced that Johnson, too, would work for free. “We agree that we don’t need anything distracting from the recovery work we’re doing,” Bass said, emphasizing that Soboroff’s willingness to forgo pay was a step in the right direction.

The backlash against the compensation package was swift and vocal. Los Angeles City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, a member of the five-person committee overseeing recovery efforts, called the $750,000 total for Soboroff and Johnson “obscene” and “infuriating.” She questioned how philanthropic funds could be allocated to such high payments when they could instead support wildfire victims directly. Similarly, Ric Grenell, a former envoy for special missions under President Donald Trump, took to social media to condemn the arrangement. “And they call this a charity. Gross. Offensive,” Grenell wrote, contrasting Soboroff’s $500,000 with the fact that many others, including himself, were contributing to recovery efforts without pay. Grenell also took a jab at California’s leadership, implying that federal funds would come with strings attached to ensure they weren’t misused.

Residents affected by the wildfires were equally appalled by the initial compensation plan. Larry Vein, a Pacific Palisades homeowner whose property suffered smoke damage, criticized Soboroff for seeking financial gain during a time of crisis. “No one should be profiting off of recovery efforts,” Vein said, echoing the sentiments of many. Steve Danton, who lost his home in the Palisades Fire and is now living in temporary housing, called the $500,000 payment a “money grab” and accused the city of a “crisis of leadership.” For Danton and others, the high compensation for Soboroff and Johnson felt like a slap in the face when so many were still dealing with the aftermath of the fires.

Despite the backlash, Soboroff defended the original compensation plan, arguing that his expertise and the scope of his responsibilities justified the payment. A veteran civic leader with decades of experience, Soboroff has served in volunteer roles on the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners and the Department of Recreation and Parks. However, he noted that this was the first time he had been asked to step away from his private business ventures, including real estate and environmental consulting, to take on such a demanding role. “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 his condition for taking the job was that his pay would not come from city funds or wildfire survivors, emphasizing that he wanted to ensure the money went directly to those in need.

Since taking on the role, Soboroff has been actively engaged in recovery efforts, fielding questions from thousands of residents, advising on city permitting processes, and recommending the hiring 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, highlighting his hands-on approach. Soboroff’s defenders argue that his extensive experience and ability to implement solutions make him a valuable asset to the recovery process. However, the initial compensation plan overshadowed his contributions and raised questions about transparency and accountability in the use of philanthropic funds.

The reversal by Bass to make Soboroff and Johnson work for free has partially mollified critics, but the episode has also sparked broader debates about leadership, accountability, and the role of philanthropy in disaster recovery. While Soboroff’s willingness to forgo his salary has been praised as a positive step, many remain skeptical about how funds are being allocated and whether the city is doing enough to support wildfire victims. As Los Angeles continues its recovery efforts, the controversy serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between leveraging expertise and maintaining the trust of the public, especially during times of crisis. The city’s ability to navigate this challenge will be crucial in rebuilding not only the physical infrastructure but also the sense of community and faith in leadership that has been shaken by recent events.