THOSE WHO CANNOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT
The stream of moonlight that poured through the cracks between the venetian blinds aided my fingers as I tuned in 810 AM on my radio station.
“I think The City is ready for a more compassionate approach to homelessness,” were words uttered by Supervisor Gavin Newsom that rang with hope as he spoke with Bernie Ward on KGO Newstalk. Favorable attitudes and warm expressions by Gavin Newsom toward Proposition N on that late night in early November blanketed all of my doubts about that piece of legislation. I fell asleep secure in the notion that Care Not Cash was the best piece of legislation to begin the process of elimination of homelessness and poverty in San Francisco.
It took a scathing report from Budget Analyst Harvey Rose to awake me to the cruel reality of Proposition N. Mr. Rose noted in his report, dated June 9, 2003, that “…Proposition N only addresses approximately 2,800 or 36.4 percent of the estimated 7,686 homeless adults and an estimated 4,886 homeless adults, or 63.6 percent of the total homeless adult population, are not addressed by the provisions of Proposition N. As also noted…, Proposition N will not impact adults who receive cash assistance from the City, but who are not homeless.”
Care Not Cash was held out by Supervisor Gavin Newsom as the best measure to usher the poor off the cold pavement into a warm bed. But this measure will displace and de-prioritize seniors, immigrants, veterans people with disabilities, working people and people without income from their current emergency housing.
Where will these people go? Shall we usher in another piece of legislation for them?
The more information I have learned about Proposition N, the more I have become convinced that Supervisor Gavin Newsom presented this legislation to Bernie Ward (AKA “The Lion of the Left”), San Franciscans and me on that late evening in November in the same manner that U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer allowed information to be presented to the jurors in the trial of medical marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal.
Members of the jury could not make an informed decision in the Rosenthal case because Judge Breyer did not allow the attorneys for Ed Rosenthal to inform the jury that he was growing plants for the Harm Reduction Center, a San Francisco dispensary operating under California’s medical marijuana law. Ed Rosenthal wanted to do great things for the sick but was found guilty by the jury.
The City of San Francisco is great because of the overwhelming compassion its citizenry shows for those persons whom others have made outcasts. But, on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, like the jurors in the Rosenthal case, we San Franciscans sentenced no less than 610 souls to the harsh asphalt by passing an insidious, wild-eyed piece of legislation, in the form of Care Not Cash. Not since the first election was held at the Presidio in 1834 has the public ever been so completely misinformed under guise of compassion. There have been bad measures, though, that were passed by the electorate.
Proposition J, for example, in 2000, became the will of the voters. However, it was overturned by the courts on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. On Thursday, May 8, 2003, Proposition N was also overturned by the courts. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said, in his decision, that “Only county officials, not voters, can set welfare standards for the downtrodden.” Judge Quidachay stated that voters have no right to decide how much money should go to the poor. Proposition J was not challenged by San Francisco. However, Proposition N, according to the Budget Analyst’s report, will be challenged by the City Attorney’s office.
I thought that seemed unusual to appeal what the court had already ruled illegal, and so I contacted the City Attorney’s office. I spoke with Matt Dorsey, Public Affairs Officer for the City and County of San Francisco. I asked Mr. Dorsey whether or not the City plans to appeal Proposition N?
“Yes,” stated Mr. Dorsey. “City Attorney Herrera has already made the decision that San Francisco will appeal Judge Quidachay’s decision in the Proposition N Case. The City Attorney’s position is that there is a larger principle than any one policy, and that is to uphold the will of the voters.” I referenced some of the initiatives that have been overturned and gone unchallenged by San Francisco and asked why has Propositioin N attracted so much scrutiny in the City Attorney’s office?
“This is one where we see the specific issue upon which Judge Quidachay ruled — that is whether or not voters had a right to pass this measure. He held that only Boards of Supervisors did. Our position is that the right of the voters to self-governance is upheld in the Constitution of the State and in the City Charter.
Since there was no specific prohibition against voters doing it, then voters have the right to do that.”
“In this case,” continued Dorsey, “At issue is whether this is something that voters have the right to do or that members of the Board of Supervisors have the right to do. Keep in mind that for the most part, California law holds that voters have far more rights than Boards of Supervisors. For example, only voters in California can raise taxes. The Board of Supervisors does not legally have the authority to raise taxes.
Voters have to approve tax hikes. So, for the most part, throughout California law, voters have far more rights to make decisions about how their government is going to work than legislative bodies — the Assembly, the Senate, Boards of Supervisors, City Councils, or whatever.
This was an instance where the judge held that the Board of Supervisors had authority to do it, but the voters didn’t. We [San Francisco City Attorney’s office] made a very compelling case that under the California Constitution voters did have that authority. Obviously, the judge didn’t agree. But we feel very strong that this principle is more important than any one issue. And, if you keep in mind, foir example, if Proposition N hadn’t been passed by voters and Proposition O [Supervisor Tom Ammiano’s measure] had, if the situation were reverse, and Proposition O was struck down, it would be the same principle [voters’ right to self-governance] to us. It’s a legal issue. It’s not a policy issue,” concluded Dorsey.
Perhaps we as voters might be compelled to raise taxes to underwrite the pending legislation that the Rule Committee forwarded to the Full Board of Supervisors on Monday, June 23, 2003.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) was designated by Proposition N as the agency that would implement the mandates of Care Not Cash. According to the Budget Analyst’s report, in its response to an inquiry letter requesting DHS “To explain in specific detail and in writing how the Department of Human Services will implement the mandates of Proposition N, in order to meet the deadline of July 1, 2003…,” DHS’s April 24, 2003, response contained “broad policy goals and generalizations rather than providing specific details on how Proposition N would be implemented.”
Since DHS would play a major role if Proposition N is shepherded through by the Board of Supervisors, I asked Matt Dorsey about the consequences if DHS could not implement the plan because of its broad policy goals and generalizations — whether a class action lawsuit would ensue?
“As a rule,” stated Dorsey, “We don’t like to comment on reasons why people would like to sue us.”
I still listen to the Bernie Ward show as I share a lot of his views on most issues. However, I have learned that I should not allow my emotions to influence my thoughts in matters as important as that of the welfare of others. The “Lion of the Left” probably was up to his chin in hot water on that late night in November when he invited that political shark to his show.
Benny