PROP N LURCHES BACK TO COMMITTEE
Judge Ronald Quidachay declared Proposition N was illegal last May 8th. He concluded that only the Board of Supervisors could lawfully set welfare payment levels, so the voter initiative was invalid. However, this viewpoint brings up other issues concerning the voters’ right to implement policy and have the final say. City Attorney Dennis Herrera is appealing the decision; in the beginning of July his office requested a fast-track schedule. According to an editorial in the Chronicle, “a victory would be a no-win prospect… would re-instate Care Not Cash, and a loss at the appellate level would enshrine poor policy into legal precedent… the Supervisors, who are after all Herrera’s clients, should direct him to scrap the appeal.”
In the first of many hearings over the next few weeks, the controversy began to become clear. On Thursday, June 5th, the Board of Supervisors called a Special Hearing to discuss the need to preserve the emergency shelters, prevent displacement and prioritize set-asides of shelters beds not based solely on income. This continues to be a stumbling block in Gavin Newsom’s Care Not Cash legislation, though Newsom has said “there cannot be any displaced, that is not its [Prop N’s] intended consequences.” The issue of “presumptive eligibility” in which emergency services are granted instead of cash seems to be at the heart of the displacement issue. On that Thursday morning, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick introduced legislation entitled “Preserving Emergency Shelter”, which would make the city code prohibit displacement, set-asides, or prioritization based on income source. The initiative passed unanimously.
This legislation is based on concerns that the Prop N implementation plan would result in displacement of seniors, disabled, youth, immigrants, veterans, and working homeless people out of the shelter system to make room for the Prop N clients. Indeed, an hour or so into the hearing that Thursday morning, a large group filed in waving signs that read “Shelter for Immigrants,” “Shelter for Seniors,” “Shelter for Youth,” Shelter for Veterans,” “Shelter for Workers” and “Shelter for All!” Some were in Spanish as well. The room completely filled up to include people standing along the walls. Many spoke during this hearing, each one showing a different perspective on homelessness and the hows and whys of getting there. Each represented another story and the difficulties people have in getting out of that very system that Supervisor Newsom wants to send them through. With displacement, how many more stories of people not making it through this “system” and ending up back on the streets will they create?
The Dept. of Human Services’ top dog Trent Rhorer was questioned, “Will there be a significant increase in beds?” Rhorer replied “Presumably these CAPP clients are already in the shelter system, so we will only maneuver them around… there already existing beds in the seven-day system for CAPP recipients… exits into Sanctuary are also considered first for CAPP recipients… we ASSUME there are enough for CAPP and non- CAPP alike… it’s not a policy decision… it is logical that the individuals already engaged in their system should be 1st… most recipients should be progressing through the system to permanent situations and they are on their way… we intend to target ALL, but we are working with many that have already been on the street for years.” Most voters were under the impression that money would be taken from the General Assistance checks and used to purchase services such as treatment and housing — not to put vulnerable and working homeless people out of shelter beds to make room for welfare (CAPP) recipients. Supervisor Matt Gonzalez said that “People who are not part of the system for whatever reason… they are less likely to get into programs and I feel it could exacerbate the situation and fill the hospitals, etc.” DHS’s Rhorer replied, “It is largely unknown whom exactly is in the system… we don’t know the breakdown… we have 4,000 to 8,000 people living on the streets… we have 1,800 beds with vacancies each night.”
Rhorer continued, saying the object was “To target PAES and CAPP clients to get them through the system and then keep adding new clients.” While DHS continues to claim a handful of shelter vacancies, most community-based organizations have yet to successfully secure any for their clients.
Back in late March, the Department of Human Services reported to the Proposition N Service Provider Implementation committee that they would prioritize CAPP recipients for all shelter beds beginning July 1st. Since then the Next Door Shelter and Multi Service Center South have received ‘change of contracts’ and switching of beds to one-night stays and back again. Mr. Rhorer said that this was a mistake in the implementation process. However, the fact remains that displacement via one-night stays have already resulted in empty shelter beds. In addition, changes made to access, with multiple times for entry and computer problems created in the chaos have caused great confusion. Evidently these nightly vacancies result from this haphazard prioritization and the inability to fill these same vacancies stems from a lack of the priority group available (in this case the CAPP recipient), not a lack of homeless people from any of the other categories that may be needing a bed.
Does it sound like we are ready to implement Proposition N?
On Monday, June 16th, a hearing at the Board of Supervisors contained a requested review of Prop N’s budget by Budget Analyst Harvey Rose. According to Budget Analyst’s study, there are several points that are in direct conflict with the realistic implementation of Prop N. The baseline funding of $13.9 million cannot be guaranteed. This money is directed by the Board of Supervisors and can be re-directed yearly. That means there is no guarantee that the same amount of money will be utilized next year for these services. Additionally, it will most likely cost more than this baseline amount each year for the housing services alone. Rose found that the CAPP program clientele “only account for six percent of the City’s overall direct and indirect spending on homeless services.”
Supervisor Gavin Newsom was not present during the morning’s proceedings. This caused quite a stir and Supervisor McGoldrick stated, “I am concerned with Newsom’s desire to have the rest of the Board try so hard to have prompt hearings and he is not present, although he was afforded every opportunity to be here.” A staffer from Newsom’s office told the Board of Supervisors that she “could try and reach Supervisor Newsom this afternoon perhaps, that she had certain times she was allowed to contact him and that Newsom was unable to get out of a prior commitment therefore, would not be present. Supervisor Matt Gonzalez spoke up in surprise, “This is essentially the first hearing on Gavin Newsom’s Care Not Cash before the Board,” to which the spokeswoman replied, “This is not an action item today.” This leaves one questioning how much does Gavin Newsom really care about his “Care?” One might think that he would be present for discussion if only to try and encourage any of those sitting on the fence with this issue.
Newsom finally attended the hearing later that afternoon. It seemed evident that he did not feel it necessary to be present while his “baby,” Proposition N, was discussed among his colleagues. How they managed to convince him to attend is still a mystery.
The following Monday’s hearing (June 23rd) did not gather any steam until the afternoon, and it was continued the following morning. Billed as a Special Meeting of the Rules Committee, the Board of Supervisors presented Item #5, which is an ordinance modifying various San Francisco administrative code sections which involve the City’s GA program and amending other SF Administrative Code sections to reflect the current grant amount, and to provide in-kind housing, utilities, and meals to homeless applicants and recipients. Also adding administrative code sections to provide a special needs allowance, to establish GA baseline assistance, to require a controller’s evaluation and to establish an operative date on or before July 1, 2003.”
Most concerns were discussed Tuesday morning after a continuance of Monday’s hearing.Supervisor McGoldrick gave each speaker one minute to state why they were either Pro or Con on these ordinances. Many spoke as ‘con’ to assert their support for Prop N, despite the numbers and other findings that say it will not work. What else do these people need to understand that Care Not Cash cannot support itself and will cost far more than the baseline amount of $13.9 million? Obviously these folks did not believe Harvey Rose’s report, or else how could they still support this legislation without amendments? Even Newsom realized this, and later presented an amendment.
On Tuesday, July 15, Supervisor Gavin Newsom spoke concerning General Assistance and In-Kind Assistance, Item #67: “I stand to support the item, we had a good hearing on this and some of the issues of concern were about the unintended consequences, while those items of concern may still be outstanding I am confidant that if that indeed happens, we can come back as a body and amend this in a way that would obviously not have any detrimental effect on other special needs populations that may be affected by this legislation. The intent of Care Not Cash was never to displace, we might as well as codify that by law and I appreciate Supervisor McGoldrick’s desire to do that.”
When there were no other comments on Item #67, the Board of Supervisors held their vote. The results of the Roll Call Vote were unanimous for Item #67, with only Supervisor Tom Ammiano absent for this one. This was an ordinance adding Article II to Chapter 20 of the San Francisco Administrative Code to preserve the emergency nature of the City’s shelter system; to prevent displacement of an individual from a shelter bed based solely on that individual’s income source, and to prohibit prioritization or set-asides of shelter beds based on income. Item #67 passed on first reading.
Item #29, “Real Housing, Real Care,” sponsored by Supervisors Daly, Maxwell and Ma, is an initiative identical to Proposition N, except the language stipulates that cash grants cannot be cut for shelter beds, and that some more conventional form of housing be provided in lieu of cash. Only four Supervisors voted ‘Nay’; Newsom, Dufty, McGoldrick, and Hall. However, the majority was ‘Aye’ and it was passed.
As discussion began on Item #28, Proposition N, the Care Not Cash initiative, Supervisor Tony Hall spoke eloquently, concerned about funding implications stated previously in the Rules Committee. Hall felt that Prop N was “Completely irresponsible… like writing a blank check to the Department of Human Services… I cannot risk our taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars on such a faulty and poorly-written piece of legislation… it is full of misrepresentation… supposed to save lives, yet the Budget Analyst pointed out that many people will be displaced with the implementation of this legislation. What has this legislation done to save lives? Up to this point nothing, absolutely nothing… there is simply no ‘guarantee’.”
Although Hall had introduced an ordinance to preserve the shelter system and keep people from being displaced, at this writing it had not yet been passed. Nevertheless, it looks good, which in turn means Newsom’s legislation will not be passed “as is.” And perhaps not even with this new, lastminute amendment Newsom introduced at July 15th’s meeting.
On that day Supervisor Gavin Newsom introduced his new, non-essential amendment, intended to precede the Board’s vote on Prop N. Newsom obviously felt the Prop N as passed by the voters was no longer acceptable ‘as is’. “We create a fund limit within the establishment of a fund that that would allow the Department to spend precisely $13,904,979.00 and not allow the Department to exceed the monies that would be set aside in that fund without a supplemental appropriation order, which would give this body the ability to say yes or to say no.”
Newsom felt that after much discussion with the City Attorney and the Budget Analyst that this amendment should suffice, even for Supervisor Hall’s concerns. The purpose was to 1) establish a base threshold fund; 2) establish what money should be placed into this fund and what it should be spent on, and; 3) make it part of implementation plan, like using the cash for supportive services. This establishes a fund limit with the City Controller. Any time the balance in the fund exceeds the 13.9 million dollar limit, DHS cannot spend more without an agreement from the full Board of Supervisors.
However, Supervisor Tony Hall was still not convinced. Hall said it is no secret that he opposes this legislation. He continued, “There is the assumption that 50% of the CAPP recipients will disappear, however, there is nothing that supports that assumption. I cannot risk the taxpayer’s money on assumptions and illusion. Care Not Cash has sold itself as a way to clean up fraudulent general assistance recipients. However, it has zero factual foundation. This proposition was also sold as a way to help people who have substance abuse problems. You would have to be an idiot to think that by merely cutting a three hundred and some plus dollars that you could cure their addiction! That is another illusion. I can go on and on and on, but, it’s really like beating a dead horse.”
“Instead of criticizing, I want to take a different tack, I want to improve it… I will need your help… by filling all the holes, closing all the gaps and track the solution on sound public policy rather than political illusion… the time has come since our last Rules Committee meeting and I want to especially thank Supervisor Gonzalez and Supervisor Dufty for sitting through those countless hours and lengthy hearings, listening to everyone… We learned something, we learned that we have to do something.”
One proposal is the DHS Care Fund. This attempts to bring fiscal accountability and fiscal efficiency with responsibility to the implementation process. The ordinance assures that the care is there before the cash is cut. Most importantly, when DHS’s spending exceeds what the campaign promised would be spent, the Board of Supervisors will have the ability to ensure that the programs get the cash to pay for the care that is provided. Secondly, there is another resolution urging the DHS to do this. This resolution urges DHS to maintain a regulation for implementing services, including screening for substance abuse and guidance to places and programs where help is available and cut financing to those who do not comply. As Supervisor Hall stated, “If we really mean to provide care, let’s do it and give the services to those who cannot handle their cash and separate them from the individuals who can. Let us not fool ourselves in pretending that all homeless people are drugaddicted or mentally handicapped.”
“Additionally, this resolution urges the Department to improve the level of proof that applicants must provide to demonstrate that they live within San Francisco and are not coming from outside. I cannot vote for CNC as it is currently written. It is just not good public policy. Without my two pieces of legislation that I am introducing, it is a house of cards. The legislation that I am introducing makes CNC real, fiscally responsible, etc. What I am proposing makes CNC and any other homeless programs work without insincere campaign promises.”
This whole process has given Newsom a new opportunity to look like he is following the “voters’ will.” Newsom consistently asserts that it “would be foolish to amend Care Not Cash before the courts rule on an appeal that could render moot any changes.” While stalling the measure, it has been amply demonstrated that Prop N’s implementation will not deliver what the Care Not Cash campaign promised.
Where would this initiative be if Gavin Newsom had submitted it last summer to the Board of Supervisors, following normal (and legal) legislative process? The most likely scenario is that some form of Propsition N would be City policy today; that it would have been worked through in committee, with amendments, and implemented without the political circus we are witnessing now. As a ballot initiative, there were several points the Care Not Cash campaign misrepresented to voters; guarantees of drug and alcohol treatment, decent housing and medical care, mental health care, and job training. In reality, this legislation “guarantees” a shelter bed and meals. No long-term solution seems to be in place. And Supervisor Gavin Newsom has been relieved of his responsibility to the voters by Judge Quidachay’s ruling.
The whole process to date has clearly been a vehicle for Gavin Newsom to organize his mayoral campaign. Everything has worked in his favor. To voters, he still looks like someone who cares and is trying to do something about our homeless situation. That’s part of the problem — it’s not a ‘situation’, it is people in trouble and needing help. What San Francisco’s homeless situation does not need is to become a platform, an advertising campaign for one ambitious person’s political gain. Unfortunately, we still have a nowin situation.
Shelter beds are a long way from keeping people off the streets in any permanent way. Most voters wanted to believe that the so-called Care Not Cash initiative would provide enough services to get homeless people off the streets into permanent situations. While listening to people argue over displacement and funding, I kept thinking, “Care Not Cash is no solution.”
Lynette
