In a small Bay Area city, a two-year experiment in simply handing people money has reached its close, not because its results were disputed but because the one-time federal funding that paid for it ran dry. Alameda's 150 households, many of them workers, retirees and people recovering from illness or eviction, now face the old question that every temporary safety net must eventually answer: who keeps the floor in place once the emergency money is gone. The mayor has praised what participants documented while declining to promise what comes next, and the wider country is quietly asking the same
Alameda Mayor Defends Guaranteed Income Pilot as ARPA Funds Run Out and Permanent Funding Stalls
The pilot ended on schedule; the money was never going to last.
Mark
Alameda spent $4.6 million and the program is over. What's the main takeaway?
Mimi
That the funding was always temporary. ARPA was a one-time allocation, so the pilot ended on schedule, and the city has no budget to continue it.
Mark
The mayor still calls it effective. On what basis?
Mimi
Mostly participant experiences. She cited people like Andrea, who covered medical bills and tolls, and Dolores, who paid off credit card debt and started savings.
Luke
Worth noting that's the mayor's characterization, based on documented participant accounts. The final 24-month evaluation was presented Oct. 6, but the article doesn't report its measured findings beyond who took part.
Mark
What do we know about the participants?
Mimi
There were 150 households. The average age was 49, 26% were 62 or older, and most were employed or retired.
Mark
Is any city actually making these permanent?
Mimi
Cook County, Illinois, approved $7.5 million in its budget for guaranteed income.
Luke
That's the one confirmed example here. The Economic Security Project says other municipalities are working on proposals, but it won't name them, so that's unverified.
Mark
And the critics?
Mimi
Republican officials and conservative groups argue the payments discourage work and breed dependence. Michael Tubbs says bans undercut local solutions.
Luke
Those are competing claims. The article offers no data settling either one.
Der Puls
- The $4.6 million pilot has run out of federal money, and Alameda has no budget to keep 150 households receiving $1,000 a month.
- Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft praises the program's results but will not commit to making it permanent, leaving recipients in limbo.
- Opponents, including Republican state officials and conservative groups, argue unconditional payments discourage work and misuse taxpayer money, pushing to block similar programs.
- Advocates such as Mayors for Guaranteed Income are pressing cities to convert pilots into permanent programs, and Cook County's $7.5 million budget shows one path forward.
- As federal ARPA deadlines approach, the outcome for other municipalities remains uncertain and will show whether temporary experiments survive.
In a small Bay Area city, a two-year experiment in simply handing people money has reached its close, not because its results were disputed but because the one-time federal funding that paid for it ran dry. Alameda's 150 households, many of them workers, retirees and people recovering from illness or eviction, now face the old question that every temporary safety net must eventually answer: who keeps the floor in place once the emergency money is gone. The mayor has praised what participants documented while declining to promise what comes next, and the wider country is quietly asking the same thing, city by city, as pandemic-era dollars reach their deadlines.
On October 6, Alameda's city staff presented the final evaluation of Rise Up Alameda, the city's first guaranteed income pilot. By then the program had already ended, because the money that paid for it was never going to last. For two years, 150 low-income households received $1,000 a month with no conditions, funded by $4.6 million in one-time federal pandemic relief.
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft defended the program, citing what participants documented: the average recipient was 49, a quarter were 62 or older, and most were working or retired. Asked whether the city would build a permanent version, she did not commit. She described guaranteed income as meaningful support, though not a complete solution to housing, health care and transportation costs.
The recipients she pointed to tell the human side of the story. Andrea, a nursing assistant, used the money to cover medical bills, rent and tolls while caring for her family after her mother died. Dolores, a retiree in affordable senior housing, paid off credit card debt and started an emergency savings account. Julia, who has a disability, bought mattresses, groceries and tires after an eviction. Tyronne, a Navy veteran, used it for medical bills and to steady his housing.
Alameda's situation is common, since many pilots nationwide were underwritten by temporary ARPA money. Advocates such as the Economic Security Project are pushing for permanent, taxpayer-funded minimum-income guarantees, and Cook County, Illinois, has already made its program permanent with $7.5 million. Opponents argue such payments discourage work and misuse public funds, and the debate over whether cities can continue these experiments is still unsettled.
On Oct. 6, city staff in Alameda, California, presented the City Council with the final 24-month evaluation of Rise Up Alameda, the city's first guaranteed income pilot. The program had already ended. The money that paid for it was never going to last.
The pilot gave 150 low-income households $1,000 a month with no conditions for two years. The council paid for it with $4.6 million from the American Rescue Plan Act, the federal pandemic relief package. Because ARPA was a one-time allocation, city notices confirm the pilot has concluded, and the city has neither a plan nor a budget to continue it permanently.
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft defended the program in comments to Fox News Digital. She called guaranteed income a valuable and effective tool against the affordability crisis, citing what participants themselves documented. She noted that the average participant was 49, that 26% were 62 or older, and that most were either working or retired. Asked whether she intends to build a permanent program, she did not commit to one. She said her responsibility is to advance practical, compassionate and evidence-informed policies that help residents meet basic needs and keep their dignity.
Ashcraft pointed to several recipients. Andrea, a certified nursing assistant, used the money after her mother died, covering medical bills, rent, gas and Bay Area bridge tolls while caring for her father and ailing brother. Dolores, a retiree in her 70s who lives in affordable senior housing after 41 years at AT&T, paid off credit card debt and started an emergency savings account. Haroon, a rideshare and transit driver, was also a recipient. So was Julia, who has a disability and moved in with her sister after an eviction; she bought new mattresses, groceries and car tires. Tyronne, a Navy veteran and former truck driver at the decommissioned Alameda Naval Air Station, used the money for medical bills and to steady his housing.
The mayor was careful about the limits. Guaranteed income, she said, is not a stand-alone solution. She described programs like Rise Up Alameda as meaningful support while the city pursues longer-term answers on housing, health care, transportation and other basic costs.
Alameda's situation is common. Many guaranteed income pilots across the country were underwritten by temporary ARPA money, and federal deadlines require municipalities to spend what remains. Mayors and advocates are now looking for ways to turn short-term experiments into permanent, taxpayer-funded programs.
The Economic Security Project, founded in 2016 by a network of entrepreneurs, activists and researchers, has helped support more than 100 pilots nationwide, and California leads with more than 60 launches. The group urges governments to consider taxpayer-funded permanent minimum-income guarantees. Shafeka Hashash, its director of cash initiatives, said multiple municipalities are working on legislative proposals but that the group cannot announce any before the localities do. She described a growing movement in hundreds of communities and said the group fields calls from some of the 1,500 members of the Guaranteed Income Community of Practice.
One concrete example exists: Cook County, Illinois, where the Board of Commissioners approved $7.5 million in the county budget for guaranteed income, making its pilot permanent without federal aid.
Opposition is also organized. Republican state officials and conservative policy groups have sought to block these programs, arguing that unconditional payments discourage work, deepen dependence on government and misuse taxpayer money. Michael Tubbs, founder of Mayors for Guaranteed Income, answered that banning locally proven policies is undemocratic and counterproductive, and that innovation should be unlocked locally.
What to watch is whether other cities follow Cook County's route or Alameda's, as the federal deadlines pass.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
Guaranteed income is not a stand-alone solution to the affordability crisis, but programs like Rise Up Alameda can provide meaningful support.— Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Banning policies that have proven effective at the local level is not only undemocratic, it is incredibly counterproductive.— Michael Tubbs, founder of Mayors for Guaranteed Income
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Fox News ↗
Economy & Finance