Which Part of ‘Care’ Don’t We Understand?: A story of deception: Reading the Lips of Gavin Newsom
Gavin Newsom’s Care Not Cash initiative has polarized San Francisco’s debate on homelessness like no proposal before. While some view Proposition N as a constructive approach to redirect GA money, others call the measure a scheme to make poverty even more miserable.
Beyond mere opinions on controversial legislation, Proposition N (Care Not Cash) also seems to divide voters’ general attitude towards homelessness: some advocate rights of the underprivileged, while others speak of “compassion fatigue” and the merits of tough love. Sole consensus is that San Francisco has a homeless crisis, and that something needs to be done.
As for the November ballot and an informed vote on Prop. N, both fractions need truthful answers to the following question: Exactly how would the measure help to alleviate the homeless problem?
While Gavin Newsom never struck me as a particularly compassionate politician, Care Not Cash did sound like a good idea at first. Referring to the New England Journal of Medicine and other serious research, a Ken Garcia column in the Chronicle pointed out a dramatic connection between welfare checks and drug overdoses. According to Newsom, other cities had tried models similar to Care Not Cash, resulting in a drastic decline in homeless deaths and an overall decline in homelessness. And when the petition spoke of “guaranteed services” — housing, job training, mental health and substance abuse treatment — I was nearly sold. Nobody wants to sponsor someone else’s addiction, and Care Not Cash promised to end such enabling, creating services that truly addressed homeless people’s needs.
A visit at the Care Not Cash office on Irving Street only confirmed the measure’s good looks. A friendly young man told me that the money gained from cash grant reductions would be allocated “ for homeless services,” with a guaranteed $9.8 million put aside every year. When asked how the City could ensure that Prop. N only effected GA recipients with drug problems, the man told me the Central Intake System would take care of that, but he wouldn’t know the specifics. One thing he could promise though: Prop. N would only target “chronic freeloaders and junkies, not single mothers on the street.” Fair enough, I thought, this Newsom guy makes sense.
Then I checked the facts.
Lies my supervisor told me
Examining Newsom’s “Voter Information Pamphlet” is like entering a garden of deception. First of all, no one (not the City, not public departments, and not Pablo Stewart) can accurately tell how and where GA recipients spend their money — if someone says “the homeless spend it all on drugs and booze”, they’re either lying or lacking information. The New England Journal of Medicine never claimed there was a connection between cash hand-outs and drug overdoses — in fact, the Journal sent a “cease and desist” letter to Newsom’s campaign, barring his unauthorized use of their name and logo.
Another expert whom Newsom lists as “support”, Dr. Mitchell Katz, the director of the Department of Public Health, studied a 48- month period — Nov. 1, 1997, through Oct. 31, 2001 — and found only a minor difference between the number of deaths in the days just after checks go out (approximately 19.4) and the rest of the month (18.8).
In addition, Dr. Staggers from the Haight- Ashbury Free Clinic pointed out that Ken Garcia had misused and distorted his statements, while the Clinic itself doesn’t support Care Not Cash. Dr. Pablo Stewart, who declares that practically 100 percent of the homeless are addicted to substances, works with addicted homeless people — it’s like a Macintosh dealer denying the existence of PCs.
The truth is that most of Newsom’s support is conveniently made up, in the hope that no one bothers to read the actual ballot text. But whatever he would like voters to believe, verifiable facts contradict him.
Of course, there are homeless substance abusers, and there are people who spend GA money on drugs. But they don’t wear badges for identification, and the idea of the Central Intake System miraculously identifying drug users is simply nonsense. Following the Care Not Cash legislation, all GA recipients will be lumped in, regardless of their actual circumstances. This way, many poor working people (GA is not charity, it’s pay for performed work) who try to get back on their feet will be cut off life support. Surely there must be a better way to address homelessness than to take money from the poor. In this context it is important to understand who in fact is on General Assistance. According to the Department of Human Services, of all 2895 people who received GA in San Francisco in 2002:
- 36 % are over 55 years old
- 18 % are over 65 years old
- 37 % are female (including pregnant women in the first two trimesters)
- 50 % are disabled (excluded from work requirements)
These are people affected by Prop N, people caught in the net we throw to pursue substance abusers and freeloaders, people “Care Not Cash” wants to survive on $59.00 a month. What’s worse, the ordinance would rob GA recipients of money used in part for temporary housing and living arrangements — hardly the best approach to decrease homelessness.
Finally, Newsom’s claim that Care Not Cash was “a step that has proven itself in the cities of Chicago and New York and the counties of Alameda and San Mateo” can be refuted as well. According to the SF Legislative Analyst, both counties have seen a dramatic increase in homelessness in the past years, just like Chicago and New York.
What remains of the Prop. N campaign after actual research is a number of false facts, misleading information, and the claims and promises of an ambitious politician. If reasonable doubt adds a grain of salt here, Newsom’s soup quickly begins to upset the stomach.
Take our test: reading the measure
City ordinances are legally binding legislation, which means they put responsibilities on the proponent. Regardless of what the public is told during the campaign, only the ballot measure establishes what Care not Cash is ultimately required to do. The ballot measure is what it boils down to, and the ballot measure is what we’ll get — it will be with us long after campaign promises are forgotten, kept or not. It’s like buying a car: while the dealer guarantees all kinds of things, most buyers will carefully read what it says in the contract. Ballot measures are much like contracts, which is why they are drafted by lawyers in confusing mumbo-jumbo. It’s also why they’ve got loopholes.
The ballot measure of the Prop. N ordinance does not mention “guaranteed services” and it does not require any specific use of the money taken from GA. In the crucial passage, Section 20.60.12 of the measure, it says about the funding slashed from GA: “This funding may (!) be used to support, but shall not be limited to (!), some or all of the following…” (a long list of services follows).
Two fat disclaimers in one subordinate clause — Bill Clinton would have liked this one!
In reality, the wording relieves the ordinance from any concrete responsibility for the use of former GA money, generously enveloping everything from affordable housing to new mahogany desks for the Mayor’s Office on Homelessness. If Newsom already knows the amount saved, why doesn’t he break down the allocation in the measure? In that case, it would say specifically “this funding shall be used for…” However, with “may be used” there is no accountability whatsoever.
If it was a car, I wouldn’t buy it.
Neither did members of the Religious Witness with Homeless People and other registered voters, who sued the Department of Elections about Newsom’s misleading use of the phrase “guaranteed services.” Unfortunately, the judge threw out the case, ruling that, regardless of whether voters may be misled by any statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet, any changes would be too difficult to make at this point. This basically means: “Who cares if the pamphlet misleads? It’s too expensive to print new ones!”
If you have doubts about the measure, just read it. If it upsets you that voters have to comb through legal documents to cast informed votes, “NO” on Prop. N is your choice.
In 2003, Gavin Newsom wants to be mayor of San Francisco, a position unattainable without a silver bullet for homelessness. Sad but true, if the homeless get screwed in the process, some San Franciscans would merely consider it collateral damage. Business and “neighborhood” interests don’t go well with third world conditions on the streets, and for some powerful lobbies “caring” about the homeless means simply to force them out of the city.
Proposition N is nothing but a cheap shot at the poor, a new draft of anti-homeless legislation in the most cynical disguise — the disguise of compassion.
Chester