Is San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria on the right track with proposed cuts to art funding?

San Diego is looking to close a projected $146 million shortfall with significant cuts to the arts, which some critics argue could hurt the economy.

Mayor Todd Gloria’s proposed budget would cut arts funding from $13.8 million to just about $2 million. Organizations that rely on the funding have called the cuts devastating.

Several economic studies over the years, sometimes from recipients of funds, have argued that arts and culture in the U.S. are a major source of economic growth.

Proposed cuts in San Diego are far reaching, from the Old Globe Theatre to the Asian American Dance Festival. Some opponents say cuts would increase unemployment and reduce economic activity. Yet Gloria maintains that hard decisions must be made, and the city must prioritize other needs, such as public safety, homelessness and transportation.

Question:Is Mayor Gloria on the right track with his proposed cuts to art funding?

Executives

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: Management must manage resources and in the city’s case, the mayor and City Council are elected managers. This is a difficult decision, but getting to a balanced budget will require such difficult decisions. The answer cannot always be to raise fees and taxes on the voters. At the same time, I certainly cannot blame the arts community for being upset.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: Cuts need to be made across the board, including the size of city government. Do I want arts and other services to face such drastic cuts? Absolutely not. But from a business perspective, leaders must make difficult decisions, including layoffs, eliminating programs or services, or closing locations. Cities are primarily responsible for public safety, planning and zoning, and public utilities. I drive on rutted roads, see costly bike and bus lane projects, and question priorities and the decisions that led us here.

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: Unfortunately. Elected officials have very hard decisions to make when funding does not match the needs. First, basic core services, which can be life threatening, need to be met, then services like libraries and parks/recreation venues that are used by all income levels need to be funded. The private sector will need to pick up the slack for arts funding.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: This is not an “anti-arts” commentary. But this is the kind of funding that ought to be mostly provided by charitable foundations. For example, billionaire Connie Ballmer just funded NPR's budget to address the loss in federal funds. If this nation is increasingly divided into "haves" and "have nots" - then the "haves” should step in to address deficits. It's the least they can do. And the city can get back to fixing potholes.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: We are on the wrong track. San Diego's arts and culture sector is essential to our identity and economy, and cutting it is the wrong place to look for savings. The city has better options: consolidate under‑utilized departments, reduce administrative overhead, re-evaluate non‑core programs, and sell surplus property. Further, homelessness demands long‑term solutions like mental health care, addiction treatment, and job training, and not overpaying for hotels. Sunbreak Ranch is a better approach.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: The deficit is real, and prioritization is required. That said, an 85% reduction in arts funding is disproportionate relative to its roughly 0.2% share of the budget. That scale of cut risks permanently damaging institutions that support tourism, local employment and community identity. I would advocate for a 20% to 50% cut stepped up over the next few years to keep several vital programs afloat, require the respective communities to step up privately and spread modest reductions across other departments.

Mark Kersey, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

NO: Cuts are inevitable with another massive city budget deficit. But virtually eliminating arts and culture funding is shortsighted due to the return on investment those grants provide in the form of resident and tourist spending. Cuts should instead come from a bloated city bureaucracy that over the past six years has grown by more than 1,200 positions while the city’s population was essentially flat. The spending priorities are the problem.

Economists

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

YES: Public art support is not intended to be the main source of funding. Artistic efforts should be self-sustaining as patrons finance them, not continually maintained by government subsidies. Not that artistic efforts are not important or valuable, but if the public is unwilling to step up support and patronage, perhaps they are not useful or essential to the general welfare of the public. Transitioning to full patronage support, community engagement should increase and improve project longevity.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: I don't oppose budgetary reductions, but these cuts (85%) go far deeper than any other budget area and could have been phased in so arts groups could better plan. Meanwhile, the city has been adding roughly 900 employees per year. At average compensation levels, that's about $133 million in new annual spending. That seems like the real problem. Slow hiring, increase middle management layoffs, and adopt more AI technology is a better way to go.

David Ely, San Diego State University

YES: Drastic spending cuts need to be placed on the table to address the massive deficit since options to raise revenues have faced strong resistance. A sharp drop in funding for the arts and elsewhere will lead to the cancellation of programs and events and a lowering of the quality of life in San Diego. It is now up to the City Council to weigh in on where the arts rank relative to other funding priorities.

Ray Major, economist

NO: It is completely unnecessary to cut from art funding. The city of San Diego has been mismanaged since COVID, and incredible bloat has occurred in the personnel budget since that time. Finding the needed $11.8 million to fund the arts would be easy if the real problems of waste and misguided spending were seriously looked at and addressed. Until the city is on more stable financial grounds, how about we postpone building just one mile of bike lane and funding the arts programs instead?

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: The proposed cuts in arts funding are devastating in their severity and could have negative economic consequences. There will be less activity in the arts, and employment in the industry will be affected. But with a severe budget deficit, hard choices must be made. The arts may have to take a back seat compared to public safety and dealing with homelessness. In an ideal world, everything would be supported. But that won't happen unless the city takes in more revenue.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: I agree that substantial cuts in the city's arts funding are going to be necessary. But we should remember that this is not what caused the deficit. Zeroing out items that have been at current spending levels for years is not the best response to the underlying structural imbalances. Still, it's a positive development that we are now talking about cutting spending instead of raising taxes.

Not participating this week:

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published April 24, 2026 at 7:02 AM.