Forget what homeless advocates said at Tuesday’s City Hall hearing that the Mayor’s Community Justice Center is another “criminalization of poverty.” And forget the obvious political point that the CJC stalemate is a symptom of Gavin Newsom’s refusal to engage the legislative branch. What the Supervisors struggled with was more basic: why allocate $2.8 million a year for a new program – when the City may cut $20 million out of existing social programs, and we deal with a large revenue problem? The CJC is the most high-profile of Newsom’s new proposals that he wants to add during tough times, but his budget also proposes giving every new child born in San Francisco $500 – a “Baby Savings Account” that will cost $1.5 million. Is the budget crunch really time to axe old programs and replace them with new ones, or does it make more sense to pass revenue measures in November so that we don’t fight over crumbs?

Public testimony in favor of the CJC did not fall along predictable political lines – as Tenderloin activists Father John Hardy of St. Anthony’s and Tomiquia Moss of TNDC, for example, spoke out in favor of the new program. But whether it is wise to invest $500,000 to build a new court house on Polk Street (followed by an annual appropriation of $2.8 million) when the City is about to cut from 150 community-based organizations is a different matter that transcends the merits of the CJC. Even CJC supporters admit that the City will need social services for the Community Court to refer people to.

This year’s budget crisis is unlike prior ones, because many social services will likely be cut – despite a well-organized labor-community coalition to oppose them. While many of these City-funded non-profits go through this annual charade of having to drop everything to save their jobs at budget season, the Board of Supervisors have generally been able to restore the Mayor’s cuts through the add-back process. But this year, the financial situation is much more dire – largely because the state’s budget crisis has ripped at the seams.

In such a grim climate, why propose additional projects that don’t yet exist – at the same time while social services are being told to shut down? And the Mayor’s Community Justice Center is only the most high profile. While Newsom’s proposed budget proposes cuts the Department of Children, Youth and Families by $487,000, it will add $3 million into that department’s budget through “new initiatives, expansions and additions.”

One of these programs – first proposed at the Mayor’s Second Inaugural – is a “Baby Savings Account,” where every new child born in San Francisco (regardless of the family’s financial need) will receive $500. The savings account will accumulate interest and be available to the child when they graduate high school. Sounds like a good program, but it will cost the City an extra $1.48 million next year.

Meanwhile, the budget cuts $300,000 out of Central City Hospitality House, $350,000 out of Caduceus Outreach (i.e., psychiatric services for the homeless), and over $1.2 million from substance abuse treatment at the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic. Forget about trying to expand treatment at these places while we have a mental health crisis in this City – the Mayor wants to give every new baby a $500 bank account.

Of course, there are good reasons to support a “Baby Savings Account” – and maybe the Community Justice Center is a good idea. But the solution is not to cut out programs to make space for them – it’s to expand the piece of the pie so San Francisco can work for everybody. Which is why Aaron Peskin’s two ballot measures for November to expand revenue make so much sense. One of them – which would eliminate a loophole in the payroll tax that exempts law firms – is a no-brainer that everyone should support.

Does Newsom want the Supervisors to support his Community Justice Center? Support increasing the real estate transfer tax (and campaign heavily for it), and maybe they can have that conversation. Despite San Francisco’s massive property values, our transfer tax is only half of Berkeley’s – and Peskin’s proposal would only increase it for transactions of over $2 million, while giving a rebate to property owners who install solar panels. It’s the kind of innovative solution to the budget crisis that we need more of at City Hall.

But a go-it-alone strategy that Newsom has pursued (while cutting social services) is the kind of recipe for what we had on Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors. Let’s work with each other to expand the budget’s pie – rather than fight over the few crumbs at the table.