For the latest example of politics trumping progress, we bring you this year’s McKinney allocations from the Federal government to local communities.

Since 1987, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (under slightly varying names) has been the primary vehicle for the disbursal of Federal dollars to local homeless assistance programs. This year, you may have caught all the fanfare from the Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH—basically the White House) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as they worked the media into a frenzy of numbers, studies, and press conferences when they announced the “winners” of this year’s homelessness funding. Local San Francisco media got the added bonus of having the head of the Bush administration front squad come to town to announce that SF got everything it asked for—inexplicably considered “extra” money.

(more…)

Now that spring is in full bloom, so is tax season. While most of us are concerned about taxes, there is a city of people here in San Francisco who must face where they are going to sleep tonight.

In the upcoming year, it is projected that the median San Francisco household of three (the average size) will make $82,100, and will thus pay roughly $11,526 in taxes. Breaking down the President’s 2007 Budget, $185.82 of that sum (or 1.6%) will go the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). $6.39 of that (one twentieth of one percent of the whole) will go to homeless services through McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance grants, while $23.89 will go toward public housing—the primary preventive measure against homelessness. It is important to note that accounting for the totality of spending toward homelessness is problematic. Many funding sources and assistance programs aiding the homeless are currently subsidized across numerous Federal, state, and local agencies.

These numbers seem far from adequate and are. While homeless assistance programs and public housing address homelessness, they are an insufficient remedy to this longstanding issue. John Rawls, political philosopher, argues that we have a moral obligation to make sure that nobody falls below a sufficient minimum. This minimum includes housing. Housing is a fundamental right, not a privilege. However, as a nation, one that claims such a fervent “united we stand” front, we are currently falling short of sufficiently meeting the needs of an estimated 2.3-3.5 million people in our country currently without homes.

In comparison, the median San Francisco taxpayer will pay $2,100.74 toward the Department of Defense and $242.51 for Homeland Security expenses. $6 less per person from the Department of Defense would reduce its tax revenues by one quarter of one percent. $6 more to HUD would restore its budget to levels not seen since before the US’ homelessness explosion in the 1980s.

If you stand at the corner of Market and Taylor on a Saturday night, the severity of the gap between the rich and the poor in San Francisco becomes blatantly apparent: Women in expensive gowns grasping the arms of men in tuxedos try as hard as they can to ignore the people sleeping on the streets before they enter Golden Gate Theater for an evening of entertainment. Though this is one of the most visible representations of San Francisco’s economic gap—the third largest gap between rich and poor in the nation—our city’s homeless population is not the only one effected by this crisis. Though they may not be sleeping on the streets, low-income seniors, youth of color, immigrants, people living with HIV/AIDS, low-income families, people in the justice system, low-income community-serving artists, and members of the LGBT community all face the devastating effects of losing health and welfare programs. Many people will pass these economic differences off as a fact of life. This is not the case. In fact, these difference have a concrete, identifiable, and curable cause that requires little more than a reprioritization of our city’s budget to help those in need, rather than to provide tax cuts and privileges to affluent businesses and people.

(more…)

On a rainy Tuesday, March 22, about 50 homeless people with supporters from the community gathered on the steps of City Hall to ask the Mayor about some numbers. Their question: “If there are fewer homeless people in San Francisco and the City is focusing its limited resources on ‘Housing First’, why has the number of citations issued for camping in the city’s parks nearly tripled over the past year?”

In sharp contrast to numerous recent attempts by the City at accurately quantifying the state of homelessness in San Francisco, these figures are undisputed. Data obtained by the Coalition on Homelessness regarding the City’s prosecution of so-called “Quality of Life” infractions in San Francisco Municipal Court indicate that in 2003 (pre-Newsom), 436 tickets were handed out for “camping” in the City’s parks; In 2004, that number rose sharply to 1114. And the most recent figures available show this trend continuing: the January 2003 monthly ticket total was just 14, while under the current administration, January 2005 saw 63 would-be campers cited—an average of more than two per day.

Camping citations are particularly difficult for homeless people to expunge from their records, since clearing them involves paying a fine larger than most can afford, or negotiating the court system successfully without the benefit of a public defender or other court-appointed assistance. As a result, tickets turn into warrants and warrants to jail time, or free labor for the city through community service–”a matter of grave concern,” says Nicole Solis of the Public Defender’s office.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, goes further. What he’d like to see is the creation of a “Clean Slate” program for homeless people whose “Quality of Life” citations have become warrants. Adachi explains, “Ideally, ticketing is viewed as intervention–an impersonal push toward services; in reality, tickets are a deterrent. But if you could offer homeless people with citations a single point of entry to get those records expunged, you might have a chance of getting them back on track.”

Following is a statement by Emalie Huriaux of The Women’s Community Clinic that reflects the concerns of many who turned out for the press conference:

“Mayor Newsom is touting a model of supportive housing as a key element in ending chronic homelessness. Although this strategy is an important one, San Francisco is ill-equipped to meet the need for housing that our population demands.

“At the most recent Project Homeless Connect—the Mayor’s version of a health fair for homeless folks—only two percent of the 1000 people who attended received housing. Where did the City expect the other 980 people without housing to go in a system with a lack of appropriate shelter?

“The City has ticketed homeless people for camping and sleeping in public for years, but under Mayor Newsom’s administration the number of camping citations has tripled. Why are our tax dollars being used to make life harder on homeless people?

“Why are our tax dollars being used to create criminal records for homeless people already struggling to get jobs, housing and financial assistance, rather than being spent to create more supportive housing units?

“Why are our tax dollars being spent for the Department of Public Works to confiscate and destroy homeless people’s property—including prescription medications often prescribed and paid for by City-funded clinics—when our tax money should be spent on programs to integrate physical and mental health services into supportive housing?

“Mayor Newsom presents his homeless strategies as innovative and effective. It’s time he puts an end to old practices of criminalizing homeless people or victim-blaming, and starts doing the real work to end homelessness.”

2005

Congress members Julia Carson (D-IN), Geoff Davis (R-KY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) have introduced the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (H.R. 840) in the 110th Congress to reauthorize Federal funding for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Since it was enacted in 1987, the McKinney Act has provided the largest chunk of Federal money spent on homelessness. The reauthorization bill would replace what communities currently call the “lead entities” of their Continuums of Care—the groups charged with coordinating and prioritizing Federal monies for the development and implementation of housing and services for homeless people—with what would be referred to as Community Homeless Assistance Planning Boards (CHAP Boards). It would broaden the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of homelessness to include people living “doubled-up” with friends or family, and people living in motels, hotels, or campgrounds due to lack of alternative adequate accommodations, and would also authorize the appropriation of $2.5 billion for Federal homeless assistance funding in fiscal year 2008.

(more…)