Supervisors Will Look at Plea on Aid : Mahony Takes Poverty Case to Board

It had all the makings of high political drama. Archbishop Roger M. Mahony, the new spokesman for the poor in Los Angeles, drove a few blocks across downtown Friday to serve up 30 minutes’ worth of moral persuasion to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

The county has not raised the basic subsistence payment for the homeless and other poorest-of-the-poor in five years, and the supervisors had rebuffed all suggestions that an increase was due. The scene Friday, a budget hearing in the Hall of Administration, held extra fascination as the first face-to-face meeting between Mahony and Supervisor Mike D. Antonovich, who had clashed over illegal immigration during the U.S. Senate campaign last month.

But instead of the acid-tongued rhetoric that often sours debates about help for the poor at supervisors’ meetings, the hearing room Friday was bathed in honeyed tones.

Mahony exchanged pleasantries with Antonovich, who praised the archbishop for taking a vocal stand against pornography. Last month Mahony wrote a letter criticizing Antonovich for a political commercial that attacked illegal aliens.

And while Mahony didn’t appear to win any converts to the cause of the poor, he left with a promise from the conservative majority on the board that they would at least look at revising their opposition to any increase in benefits for the poor.

The archbishop’s target is the county’s $228-a-month “general relief” payment to indigents who do not qualify for any other government aid except federal food stamps, and who do not own a car or other property. Many of the 39,000 general relief recipients in the county are homeless at least part of each month, and the able-bodied are required to work off their grant in county programs.

About half the state’s counties, including Orange and Ventura, pay higher general relief grants to their destitute than Los Angeles does. Mahony, repeating the arguments of advocates for the poor, said the monthly grant should be raised so that the portion alloted for housing--$143--provides at least enough to rent a room in a Skid Row flophouse, most of which rent their bare, roach-infested rooms from $240 a month.

“The very poor and homeless of Los Angeles County depend on general relief as a program of last resort--this is their final social safety net,” Mahony read in a prepared statement.

“I am not asking that the poor be housed in luxury condominiums, only that they . . . live in a dignified manner in safe and clean housing.”

Mahony also urged the board to reduce the penalty for some violations of general relief rules. Violations like missing work dates or welfare office appointments are punished now by barring all government aid for 60 days.

‘Oppressive Regulation’

“The 60-day penalty is an oppressive regulation which does not provide a commensurate penalty for (the) infraction . . . . The 60-day penalty is a mistake and I urge you to change it.”

The board typically rejects increases in the general relief grant on a 3-2 vote.

Ed Edelman and Kenneth Hahn, the board’s two liberals, who normally support such increases, endorsed Mahony’s call. Both Antonovich and Supervisor Deane Dana told Mahony that the county is pressed for funds and probably could not afford an increase in the general relief amount. “We are placed in the position of being a Solomon . . . and there’s no way we can be a Solomon today with the limited resources (we have) and the large demands,” Antonovich said.

No Change Expected

Board Chairman Pete Schabarum withheld comment while Mahony was present, but when interviewed later said he was sympathetic but didn’t foresee any policy change.

“The archbishop’s presentation wasn’t anything we haven’t heard before, and I mean like a bunch of times,” Schabarum said. “The archbishop’s recommendations probably translate into about a $50-million or $60-million added impact on the county budget. Where do you move dollars from to do this? I didn’t hear the archbishop make any recommendations.”

The county is facing trial in two Superior Court suits filed by anti-poverty advocates seeking to raise the general relief amount and change the 60-day penalty.