Image 01 Image 03

City of West Hollywood Launching Guaranteed Income Pilot Program for LGBTQIA People Only

City of West Hollywood Launching Guaranteed Income Pilot Program for LGBTQIA People Only

“We chose that group because of the demographics in West Hollywood, where 45% of residents identify as LGBT, and 25% identify as older adults or senior citizens”

The city of West Hollywood in California is launching a pilot program to disburse guaranteed monthly income to approximately twenty-five people, but there’s a catch.

The program is limited to senior citizens who identify as LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex or Asexual).

Eugene Volokh reports at Reason:

Straights Need Not Apply, for City of West Hollywood Guaranteed Income Pilot Project

From the West Hollywood site:

The City of West Hollywood, in collaboration with nonprofit partner, National Council of Jewish Women/LA, will open applications for the first pilot project for guaranteed income in the nation aimed at evaluating the impact of cash payments on the financial stability and quality of life of LGBTQIA older adults. Guaranteed income is a direct and regular cash payment – no strings attached – provided to a specific group of people for a designated time. Guaranteed income pilots are a way to test the impact of these payments, while also providing a service to help financially stabilize community members and learn information to help create future, evidence-based policies and programs.

The program makes clear that, to be eligible, the applicant must (among other things) “Identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex or Asexual (LGBTQIA),” as well as be poor and 50 or older.

The California Supreme Court, as it happens, has expressly held (interpreting the state constitution’s equal protection clause) that “statutes according differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review.”

The city doesn’t seem too concerned about controversy or questions. They’re pushing the program on Twitter:

People are asking questions, though. Specifically about the LGBTQIA requirement.

This is from an August 2021 report at the San Francisco Chronicle, via MSN:

“We chose that group because of the demographics in West Hollywood, where 45% of residents identify as LGBT, and 25% identify as older adults or senior citizens,” she said. “We know that historically, the older LGBT population has been discriminated against, and they’ve had to deal with the effects of discrimination compounded over years, from the AIDS crisis to being denied the right to marry and missing out on benefits. We decided that this population was the right one to focus on.”

Horvath provided figures showing that 44% of those living in poverty are older than the age of 55 (the Census Bureau estimates that just 14.8% of the city’s population is 65 and older), and that nationally, LGBT people have a 21.6% poverty rate compared with 15.7% for straight cisgender individuals.

Former West Hollywood Mayor Lindsey Horvath is apparently involved with a group called Mayors for a Guaranteed Income:

What are they going to do if someone who is not LBGTQIA applies for the program?

Don’t you want to find out?

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“limited to senior citizens who identify as LGBTQIA”

Only a little, teensy-weensy bit unconstitutional.

We are officially living in Post-Constitutional America.

    fscarn in reply to henrybowman. | March 10, 2022 at 5:37 pm

    We’ve been in a post-constitutional America for some time. 1937 is a red-letter day on this score.

    1937 witnessed the said Switch-in-Time-that-Saved-Nine case of West Coast Hotel Co. The switcher, Justice Owen Roberts, was the Court’s first Profile-in-Putty. The day before, all sorts of things were not permitted by the straight reading of the text of the Constitution; then, beginning March 29, 1937, everything socialist was permissible by the very government whose existence was based on the principle of limitation.

    And once the moorings to constitutional text were broken it took no time at all for all manner of government expansion to burst forth. That 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn is an outgrowth from the West Coast Hotel case. There, the Interstate Commerce Clause got an energized life never, ever imagined by the Framers.

    If the text of the Constitutional were followed – stated otherwise if those in Congress really meant their Article VI oaths – fedgov would be one-tenth its size and we would have that much more freedom. And when we speak of freedom, what is meant is freedom from government.

    The entire thesis of the Constitution is LIMITATION of the created government. The D party, with a goodly number from the tag-along R party, turns this on its head and looks to expand government at every turn.

      henrybowman in reply to fscarn. | March 10, 2022 at 7:39 pm

      Well, yes. All that is true.
      But today marks the period when they’re no longer even bothering to pretend that the absolutely obvious parts are still in force.

      Milhouse in reply to fscarn. | March 11, 2022 at 12:52 am

      Nope. The “switch in time” is a myth. Roberts cast his vote to overturn Adikins on December 19, 1936, 7 weeks before FDR announced his plan to pack the court on February 5, and almost 3 months before FDR’s fireside chat explaining it on March 9, so he could not have been influenced by that announcement.

      The only reason the story ever gained currency is because the decision wasn’t officially announced until March 29, so people assumed it was a reaction to the plan. Both Roberts and Hughes explicitly denied that the president’s plan had any effect on the decision, as indeed must be the case since they hadn’t heard of it at the time.

      What’s more, Roberts had already decided Adkins was wrong long before that; this was simply the first opportunity the court had to overturn it.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to henrybowman. | March 11, 2022 at 12:30 pm

    The new Constitution is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

this multi-disabled 54yr old asexual cat person thinking about moving TO that city.

Federal Law would kill this no matter if it passes the California Supreme Court by them screwing the Constitution.

Congressman Jim Jordan nailed this idiocy with his question,
“Do you support discrimination to achieve equity?”

Moon Battery | March 10, 2022 at 6:21 pm

How is this legal and not discriminatory?

    Milhouse in reply to Moon Battery. | March 11, 2022 at 12:53 am

    It isn’t.

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to Milhouse. | March 11, 2022 at 3:38 am

      Do they have a defence that this isn’t discriminatory? They’re not providing a basic guaranteed income, they’re testing the impact of one on a (supposedly) disadvantaged community.

      The test needs to include that community to be valid. Limited funds mean they sadly can’t afford to include a control group.

      Personally I think that’s utter bollocks, but legally..?

I am gay, and still have two or three uncashed stimulus checks. No way in hell would I ever consider taking that money. I’d rather live in a tent next to the freeway than take those crumbs.

Stealing your money, our money to give away to special groups
And they think this is OK

And we have no right to stop this insanity

    Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | March 11, 2022 at 12:55 am

    It isn’t taxpayer money, at least not directly. Funding is apparently coming from outside donors, though one of them is a government entity. But the city is still not allowed to do this, even if it cost it nothing at all, and all the money came from the private sector. It’s still illegal.

Sounds like a fake study designed to produce a foregone conclusion.

If you give people money they will afford more stuff….big surprise. It’s not even a study that attempts to answer a real question or solve concerns with such a program.

What a bunch of hypocrites these people are!!

George_Kaplan | March 10, 2022 at 11:01 pm

How does one provide proof of one’s choice of ‘LBGTQIA’ lifestyle?

    ConradCA in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 11, 2022 at 2:52 pm

    Can’t men be trans lesbians and women be trans homos?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 11, 2022 at 6:36 pm

    A very private interview [if you ignore the hidden cameras] with a bureaucrat who matches the sexual preference you claim. After all, this is the Peoples’ Democrat Republic of Alta California.

    Subotai Bahadur

    Arminius in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 11, 2022 at 7:47 pm

    I recall Bob Hope joking after Kali legalized same-sex activity in 1976:

    “Have you heard? Californian just legalized homosexuality. I’m leaving before they make it mandatory.”

    Who knew Bob Hope was a visionary?

statutes according differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review

You forgot the “depending on whose ox is being gored” exception to this rule, making it inapplicable to straights.

WHAT? The gays are the wealthiest people on my block! They own multiple businesses and employ over 100 people in the community. They hold fundraisers for the elementary and the charter school in the neighborhood. They don’t need any handouts! They’re the ones helping us non-gays out!

    Milhouse in reply to ChayaLoo. | March 11, 2022 at 3:04 pm

    That’s exactly the same as claiming that “the Jews are the wealthiest people” so there can’t be any poor Jews. It just isn’t true. The existence of wealthy Jews/gays/whoever doesn’t affect the existence of poor Jews/gays/whoever. Both exist, and the poor ones need help. It’s entirely valid for a charity within such a community to help its poor members. But it’s illegal for a government entity to do so. If the government wishes to help the poor, it should simply help the poor, without regard for what else they are.

The fact that not every member of a group fits a stereotype doesn’t mean there isn’t an element of truth to a stereotype.

I recall when San Francisco banned public nudity around 10 years ago. I remember it because the city council had a period of public debate before deciding the issue. Man, they made for some interesting viewing. You’d have thought the world was coming to an end. The gallery was full of gay men who did not want to wear clothes in public.

Actually, they didn’t totally ban public nudity. You just have to get a parade permit. Clearly they were thinking of the Gay Pride parade. I recall coming home on leave. I flew into SFO, and since I’m such a considerate guy I didn’t want any family to fight the traffic all the way to the airport. I took public transportation to where it would be more convenient for them to pick me up. I had to walk a few blocks to change stations from MUNI to BART. And wouldn’t you know it; the Gay Pride parade was going on. Some things can’t be unseen. Such as men wearing a**less chaps. One guy had a child with him. That kid is going to need serious therapy. I passed one booth that was selling leather fetish wear. They had them in sizes for children.

Actually you very rarely see children anymore in San Francisco. In 1970 there were over 90,000 elementary school aged children in the city.. I’m sure it’s down to half that number now. It’s simply a very unfriendly place to raise children. Everything is expensive, especially housing, and a large part of the reason why is its burgeoning gay culture. You have childless people with a lot of disposable income and that drives prices up. Then there’s the fact that some of the residents actually think leather fetish wear for children is a good idea.

Straight people who want to start families and have kids go to where it’s more affordable. And they don’t have to explain fetish wear to their four year old.

Is every gay person wearing a**less chaps and shopping for fetish wear at the San Francisco pride parade. Of course not. I’ve met quite a few gay men and lesbians who go out of their way to not live up to the stereotype. They don’t speak with a lisp, they wear clothes in public and even dress conservatively, and the women don’t have butch haircuts or dress like lumberjacks. They also are angry that is what passes for gay culture. But that is what is advertised as gay culture and it seems like the city government, corporations, and the local MFM are in a bidding war to see who can celebrate it the most just to prove they are so open minded and tolerant.

A friend of mine was a reporter, later editor, for one of the San Francisco dailies. I believe the Chronicle as that was the morning paper at the time. Still the writing was on the wall as both papers had rapidly declining readership. One morning at a staff meeting they were brainstorming what to do to somehow get more people to be willing to read their paper. My friend just tossed that morning’s paper on the conference table. Every single picture on the front page showed gay couples committing very public displays of affection. “Nobody wants to see that s*** while having their morning coffee. That’s why we’re losing subscribers.” Which was true; I knew gay people who really didn’t want to see that first thing in the morning, Naturally, they didn’t listen to them. Their preferred solution was to celebrate gayness longer and harder. Naturally it got the point that they were trying to give the paper away and nobody wanted to take it.

Also just as naturally he was not long for the San Francisco newspaper business given his unauthorized and unapproved opinions. But then that was a decision he had already made.

It’s not a fair stereotype maybe. The stereotype probably doesn’t represent even the majority of gay people. But when I say that’s how gay culture is advertised I mean it literally. If you care to, go to the San Francisco visitor information center website. The city markets their “vibrant LGBT community” to the world as some sort of tourist attraction. It’s the flamboyant gays who have their pictures featured on the website. So the city tends to attract those same people who are gay, want everyone to know they’re gay at a glance, and who try to outdo each other being more in your face gayer than the next very, very gay person you might run into.