San Francisco tested a $1,000 guaranteed income pilot program. Here’s how it went for two artists. – SFGate

The community of artists and writers to which Dublin belongs is fighting to hold on to their place in the most expensive city in America. In 2015, the same year Dublin moved to the Bay Area, the San Francisco Arts Commission surveyed nearly 600 local artists and found that more than 70% of them had either already left San Francisco or were about to be displaced from their work, home or both. The pandemic has only intensified these problems. A report by Americans for the Arts found that 53% of artists have no savings whatsoever as a result of the pandemic.

In an effort to mitigate what appears to be an existential threat to the arts, in March 2021, the city of San Francisco partnered with the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts to launch a guaranteed income pilot, called the SF Guaranteed Income Pilot for Artists, or SF-GIPA, that gives 130 local low-income artists who have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for 18 months. Dublin is among them. 

YBCA was selected out of a pool of proposals to run the program on behalf of the city because of its experience and connections. At the time, YBCA was planning to launch its own guaranteed income project for artists, and this allowed it to combine forces and take both projects further. The first six months of funding for the SF-GIPA project came from the Arts Impact Endowment, which is funded by San Francisco’s hotel tax and designated for underserved communities. YBCA extended the project by an additional 12 months with private funding from the Start Small Foundation, a philanthropic initiative by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. 

“The selection process was extremely difficult, because the need is so much greater than the available resources,” says Stephanie Imah, who is leading YBCA’s pilot. “It’s hard for anyone not to be heartbroken. Twenty-five hundred people applied for the program, but we could only select 130. You end up carrying the weight of that every day. There are so many more people that need support.” 

From bad to worse

San Francisco’s artistic community has been quietly dwindling for decades. Over the past few years, it has seen some of its most important concert venues, theaters and art galleries shuttered. The pandemic has accelerated this downward trend, with the closing of institutions like Gallery 16 as well as the renowned Gagosian in early 2021. After 30 years of representing local independent jewelry designers, the Gallery of Jewels permanently shut down in October 2021, joining 3 Fist Studios, the Museum of Ice Cream, Christian Daniels Gallery, Guerrero Gallery and Irving Street Projects. 

But the most dramatic closures have come from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, which laid off or furloughed more than 300 staff members, cut the remaining staff’s salaries by 20% and announced the elimination of the organization’s online arts magazine, Open Space publishing platform, film program, podcast, its hybrid restaurant gallery space In Situ, as well as Modern Art Council. But perhaps most devastating of all was SFMOMA’s permanent closure of its Artists Gallery, which has financially supported local artists by selling and renting their work to the public for the past 75 years. 

All this isn’t just bad for artists, it’s bad for the city’s economy as a whole. According to a 2017 Arts & Economic Prosperity report by the San Francisco Arts Commission, the nonprofit arts and culture sector generates $1.45 billion in total economic activity, supports 39,699 full-time jobs, and generates $1 billion in household income to local residents. 

“The arts are truly critical to our local economy and are an essential part of our long-term recovery,” said San Francisco Mayor London Breed in a statement announcing the launch of SF-GIPA in March. “If we help the arts recover, the arts will help San Francisco recover.” 

A YBCA report on SF-GIPA paints artists in a similar light, as economic saviors central to “reimagining, reawakening, and rebuilding” a post-pandemic America. But to those who’ve been paying attention — specifically, the city’s artists themselves — the notion of casting a historically underresourced demographic to be the driver behind saving the economy is glaringly ironic. 

Supporting yourself as an artist has never been easy, but as a 2019 National Endowment for the Arts report reveals, even before the pandemic, “broader economic trends such as rising costs of living, greater income inequality, high levels of debt, and insufficient protections for ‘gig economy’ workers are putting increasing pressure on artists’ livelihoods.” Few places have felt the brunt of these changes as much as San Francisco, the birthplace of the gig economy and a national emblem of unaffordability. 

“Being an artist here is very challenging since the cost of living has gone up so much, and artists’ pay hasn’t,” explains Marika Brussel, one of YBCA’s guaranteed income recipients. Brussel has lived in San Francisco since 1996, working as a choreographer and teacher. “I make almost the same hourly teaching rate as I did in 2008,” she says. “If I wasn’t married, I don’t think I could afford to live here.”

Brussel specializes in contemporary ballet, and her performances are heavily informed by social justice as well as her personal experiences. “I try to tell stories that are relevant to our time,” she explains. “I choreographed a ballet called ‘From Shadows’ about homelessness, and that was based on my father’s story.” When Brussel was 11, her father became homeless as he fought, and eventually won, his battle with heroin addiction. Her work makes an art of empathy building. 

The additional income from SF-GIPA has allowed her to pay for studio space, compensate her dancers, and produce a film of her latest ballet called “House of Names,” which explores the Me Too movement through the lens of mythology.

An economic Catch-22

In order to sustain themselves, people like Dublin and Brussel have to work more, losing the time they would otherwise invest in their creative pursuits. This is what Jim Pugh, co-founder of the Universal Income Project, calls time scarcity. (While universal basic income would offer a set amount of money to everyone, guaranteed income programs target specific demographics, such as mothers or artists, but both emphasize the value of a “basic income.”)

“If you have a family that you are providing for, you don’t have the option to just pause providing for them in order to plan for your future,” he explains. “If you’re not giving people a way to overcome that poverty of time, they are effectively trapped.” 

A recent paper by a team of academics out of the London School of Economics and Political Science found that escaping poverty is only possible when individuals are able to afford time off work to do more productive things, like attend job interviews, get more career training or work on something unique and innovative like a business or creative project. The London School of Economics paper emphasizes that moving people permanently out of poverty requires “big push policies” that help households reach a living wage. 

This is essentially the same idea as an “income floor,” the basic principle behind guaranteed income. It’s about providing people with that Goldilocks threshold of income — not too little, not too much, but just enough to make permanently escaping poverty possible. Without an income floor, people like Dublin and Brussel have to stretch themselves to a breaking point. 

And it’s not just artists: The San Francisco program was spurred, in part, by the success of Stockton’s Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) project in 2019. Organized by former Stockton Mayor Michael D. Tubbs, the SEED project gave 125 low-income residents $500 every month for two years — the country’s first city-led guaranteed income pilot. Proponents said it proved that guaranteed income increased employment, mental well-being and created new opportunities for a better life. Cities across the country, now including San Francisco, have followed Tubbs’ lead with various similar programs.

Though the additional income from SF-GIPA is a welcome relief, as the project moves past its halfway point, the question remains: Will 18 months be enough time to truly make a difference in these artists’ lives? YBCA is currently scrambling to find a way to continue supporting guaranteed income recipients after the project’s scheduled end in October 2023. 

​​“It’s just so sad; people come to San Francisco because of the art and culture, but the art and culture makers can’t afford to live here,” says Imah. “This is very much a rental problem. It’s really hard for artists living in San Francisco unless they work in tech. It’s clear we need long-term solutions.”

For YBCA, that means advocating for big policy changes down the line. 

“Our eyes are on the federal government,” YBCA CEO Deborah Cullinan explains in an interview with Berkeley’s Aurora Theatre. “We’d like to see guaranteed income programs across the country for all people.” 

For now, the organization is focused on collecting “university standard research” in order to make an irrefutable case for universal basic income as a viable long-term solution to poverty. 

“There is an important human aspect to all this,” says Imah. “The money artists receive is not conditional on their creative output. Yes, we want to help artists, but this program goes beyond that. This is about helping people live their lives, pay rent, support their kids, visit their family, whatever they need to do to live happier, healthier lives.”

Fittingly, when asked how his life has changed as a result of YBCA’s guaranteed income program, Dublin’s answer had nothing to do with art or writing. “When I think about the ways my life has improved, what’s most significant is being able to afford having my son live with me full-time,” he says thoughtfully. “It’s something I’ve been chasing for years.” For Dublin, this experience is as much about building an artistic practice as building a life with his son in the city he loves. Whether the city will love him back remains to be seen.

Natalia Borecka is an SF-based writer, photographer and founder of Lone Wolf Magazine. She is currently working towards a master’s degree in journalism at NYU.