Care Not Cash struck down!

They must have known . . . . now look to see what the actual coverage in the Chron will be. Will they say *anything* about this? What will Newsom run on without his pet attack on homeless?

Most likely he'll just come up with another fake and illegal plan and run on that, and the right-wingers will go for it.

Or maybe Hall will get in the race and wreck it for Newsom, or else Amos Brown or something.

The Chron tried to report that Alioto was doing the best so far behind Newsom, although their fake poll on the front said Ammiano.

In her address to the LGBT Demo club on Tuesday night, Angela thanked Jerry Threet for his work on Care Not Cash. Does anyone know whether he played a role in work that facilitated the Judge's overturning this completely boneheaded sociopathic piece of Newsom trash? I supposed I could ask him, but I suspect he's a pretty busy guy. Thanks for responding.

not to speak in favor of the initiative - because this in combination with the worsening economic conditions later this year, the dismantling of mental health services, plus results of the state budget cuts are set to create an ugly situation later on - but I don't understand the reasoning that the state and not the county sets the standards. Other cities don't give the same payments or have the same style of program that San Francisco does. Could the state mandate that Daly City or Mill Valley should give the same payments?
Also, is funding for mental health, and the general hospital and so forth all derived from San Francisco tax money? Can Burbank or Palm Springs, or Idaho, solve the problem created by the 2% of their population who comes down with major mental illness, and doesn't have health insurance, by sending them to San Francisco?

Gavin Getty, er I mean Newsom, was on Channel 7 News tonight going off about how wrong it was that one person, the judge, went against the will of the voters.

Can anyone remember him speaking out on this issue before, like when Sandra Day O'Connor went against the will of the voters in December 2000?

And, on this "one person" going against the will of the voters issue - let's talk about California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. Shelley is the one person who can legally stop instant run-off from being implemented for this Fall's mayoral race. He is the one who will decide if San Francisco is "ready" to implement instant run-off voting.

Newsom campaigned against instant run-off. He wants to run in the former system where he is likely to win in a run-off with Ammiano. Instant run-off is bad news for Newsom as it favors "everyone's second choice" Susan Leal or consolation prizes like Angela Alioto.

Will Shelley say no to instant run-off? Only John Burton knows for sure. And, if Shelley does say no, let's watch his campaign donor list - the Getty's are sure to write a nice big check.

It was our persistent campaign against Prop N, including massive precinct work and the protests by the friends of the homeless against Prop N in every venue that made possible this resounding courtroom victory for the workingclass with the tossing of Prop. N, the scapegoating of single homeless people for the benefit of that good Democrat, Baby Boy Supervisor Gavin Newsom, in his ridiculous run for the mayor's office.

As we note from the Chronicle's 5/8/03 online article at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/09/PROPN.TMP,

"[Judge] Quidachay ruled that state law and case law made it clear that the California Welfare and Institutions Code allows only the Board of Supervisors of each county or an agency of the county to adopt standards of aid for the poor. "

""Implementation of the statewide policy is beyond the reach of initiative and referendum," Quidachay said."

Judge Quidachay is no radical. He simply realized that he was faced with either tossing the entire state Welfare Code or tossing this ridiculous publicity stunt, a local ordinance, known on the November 2002 ballot as Proposition N. He knew that the lawsuit, by definition, was the result of tremendous political opposition to this publicity stunt based on scapegoating the homeless, and thus he had nothing to lose and everything to gain to simply rule on the law, without ruling on the details of this fascist measure.

This knocks out the second pillar propping up Baby Boy Newsom's little lark, running for mayor. The first pillar was knocked out by the voters in November, namely the defeat of Prop R, the rollback of rent control proposition. In a city that is 2/3 tenant, which tenants constitute 50% of the voters in a high voter turnout election which the govenror's general election usually is, and which tenants are very well-organized in defense of rent control with an outstanding precinct campaign, we knocked Prop R out first. Many of us who campaigned against Prop R also campaigned against Prop N, and that helped build the momentum to this courtroom victory.

The knocking out of both Prop R and Prop N are serious defeats for Gavin Newsom's loudest backer, Election Fraud "mayor" Democrat Willie Brown, as he finishes his lame-duck term with a little over 7 months remaining, with less than 20% support. Defeating Willie Brown anywhere and everywhere is always a major victory for the workingclass, and gives this writer immense pleasure. The horror of his criminality may be observed at:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
and
http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown

This victory is just a taste of what we can expect when we organize.

Power to the People! All power to the workingclass! There ain't no power that the power of the people can't stop! And, there ain't no power like the power of the people!

Whether it’s 215, 209, 187, 2000 Presidential Election, Recall Gray Davis campaign, or Prop N, that we no longer live in a democracy where the results of an election is respected. But in a country were well funded special interest groups can overturn the will of the people.

So you think heavily funded 'Special Interest Groups' overturned the will of the people, but you don't think elections are influenced by those same people? How much money went into the Care not Cash initiative? You can bet it was alot more than these special interest groups had to overturn it.

And how can you say that the will of the people shines through in our elections when people like Jeb Bush and Dubya and his appointed court can overturn our votes?

Until elections aren't funded by corporate billionaires, I think the will of the people will have to come through in other ways. So all who are in favor of that and against the way our elected officials are spending our tax money, please come out to the Oakland docks on Monday where we will be protesting the billions being paid to Bush and Cheney's comporate buddies while health care and schools are cut down to nothing.

There are several examples of where well-funded candidates and propositions lost to smaller money candidates and propositions. Yes, special interest groups did fund Prop N, but the one fact you cannot change is that 60% of the voters supported Prop N and it is these voters, not the special interest groups, that passed Prop N. It is the responsibility of the voters to educate themselves on the issue and information about, for, and against Prop N was readily available to the voters of SF.

“And how can you say that the will of the people shines through in our elections when people like Jeb Bush and Dubya and his appointed court can overturn our votes?” Never said I did – reread my first sentence where I mention 2000 Presidential Election along with 215, 187, & 209.

My point is that regardless of it being a Right or Left issue is that we live in a democracy where the majority determines our laws and elected officials. It is becoming too common that a minority special interest group can overturn and/or delay election results for their own purposes.

And just an FYI on your dock protest, a majority of education/health care spending for California comes from State Taxes (Sales, Income, Gas, Utilities, Tolls, Etc) and not from the Federal Government. Your protest would be better directed at Grey Davis and the California Legislature than Bush and Cheney.

Why is it when people want to help the homeless get off of the street, into jobs, better health services - it's an attack on the homeless?

The current system DOES NOT work.

I've seen the same people on the street for 5 years now. Before that, I remember the same people from 5 years previous, sitting in their own urine, or mouthing off obscenities for hours on end sitting on the same benches.

Some change has to happen, anybody have a better idea?

>>> This knocks out the second pillar propping up Baby Boy Newsom's little lark, running for mayor <<<

Actually, it does just the opposite. Had CNC been implemented, Newsom's opponents could have used it against him in November when there were still homeless on the streets. Now, however, Newsom can claim the credit for CNC while accusing the rest of the Supes of failing to implement it. The judge's stay of CNC was a brilliant move of political strategy--any legal decision certainly won't come before the election.

Newsom is re-introducing CNC to the board tomorrow (Tuesday). When they don't support it, he will have the perfect campaign platform of how the supervisors go against the "will of the people".

CNC lost in only two supervisory districts. In the districts where it won, supervisors will be hard-pressed to explain to their constituents come November why they didn't implement it.

Also, I notice how many people here vehemently attack CNC yet propose no useful alternative. So, what are your proposals for solving the homeless crisis. Lets say you take all the money from the rich and give it to the homeless and they *still* decide to sit outside and babble in a puddle of their own urine? Then what?

Another thing I would like to know are the salaries of those working for the Coalition on Homelessness. I have a feeling that a lot of them are making a good buck off the suffering of the homeless and thus have no incentive to truly solve the problem.

The name "Care Not Cash" is a bit of a misnomer. Why not call it what it is "no cash." No extra shelter beds are being added. No additional substance use programs, hospital beds, psychiatric treatment, affordable housing, employment training or any of the other things that homeless people need.

In fact all these things are being CUT from the city budgets. So you want suggestions of how to help the homeless. It seems pretty obvious to me. Put some money into these services. Other countries do it with laudable results. Why can't we? People who "sit in their own urine babbling" when given the billions that the US wealthiest 'earn' need to be in psychiatric treatment (like they were before Reagan 'deinstitutionalized California).

>>> People who "sit in their own urine babbling" when given the billions that the US wealthiest 'earn' need to be in psychiatric treatment (like they were before Reagan 'deinstitutionalized California). <<<

Several lawsuits were filed on behalf of those in institutions with the end result being that no one can be confined against their will. So, even if we start the treatment programs with the billions of dollars you say we can take from the rich, there is no legal way to force anyone to use them.

So, again, how do we get the babbling person sitting in their own urine into treatment if it isn't mandatory?

Since when does San Francisco take policy from a wealthy socialite butt-boy? This S.O.B. has been a slut for Getty, and we're now taking policy from him as he tries to rid San Francisco of it's poor. The media plays right into it, as I've *never* heard them mention workfare - a mandatory part of recieving 'welfare'. Does anyone know the future of workfare after the grants are slashed?

Upon having their grants slashed, I'd like to see people protest by emptying the contents of Examiner boxes into the wind. The Examiner has to be the worst anti-poor offender, and I'd love to remind them of what GA recipients were doing for their grants.

why does this site have No search engine???

In those days, this was a relatively low volume site. These days, it is a high volume site. The search engine was putting such a load on the data base that response time slowed to a crawl. So we decided to disable it. Try searching us with Google.

Oh, you little men, you Newsom klan. There are those who disagree with you and it's driving you nuts, isn't it? Oh, well, this is what makes democracy so great. Watching you squirm and hedge whenever a serious question regarding funding and "care" comes to the forefront. Where's the "Care" gonna come from? Where's the funding? Where's the housing?

**No additional substance use programs, hospital beds, psychiatric treatment, affordable housing, employment training or any of the other things that homeless people need. *** These programs that "Care Not Cash" relies so heavily upon are already being slashed and before the recent cuts, these programs were heavily overburdened and underfunded.

Stop the rich, yuppie, Marina Pacific Heights martini-swilling, coke-sniffing, SUV driving, wanna-be-republicans brats from demonizing the poor as a means to get one of their own--Gruesome Newsom into office. Is Newsom prepared to give up ownership in his businesses to be mayor? Something about conflict of interest...he didn't seem to have the balls to do this while supervisor.

Stop corporate welfare!

Pardon me but is there anything of substance that you can add other than base attacks against liberals in your arguments supporting Prop N--Care Not Cash? According to you, taking away $59/month up to $359/month from each recipient... that's from $1.96/day up to $12/day....that this is enough to fund housing, services, clinics, job training, and mental health facilities? All of this paid for with only $1.96-$12.00 per day per person! WOW. Man you're right, Newsom is a master of economics and whiz at homeless policy if he can get that bird to fly. Now really, what kinda math are you using? Voodoo economics? Taking the sole monies available to this very small group of people (1,600) will not solve the homeless problem. You'll still have to face the poor everyday until hopefully one day you move to Disneyland/Disneyworld. Please tell me if you're a child, or mentally challenged so I can stop posing these questions in hopes of real answers--not baseless attacks based on your presumptions regarding our political leanings? There are true "christian" Right-wing conservatives who would never condone kicking the poorest of the poor. Bad for business, you know. Bad for the image. Bad for the status-quo. When you run out of scapegoats, there will be trouble. Be Afraid! Fixing the homeless--sounds like eugenics to me.

opinion

by jennifer friedenbacz

Prop. N's big lies

PROPOSITION N, being financed by big business and brought forth by media darling Sup. Gavin Newsom, would cut cash assistance to the poorest San Franciscans by 83 percent. Prop. N backers clearly believe homeless people will then flee San Francisco – although they're telling voters this will actually help homeless people.

Here are some of the biggest lies the Yes on N campaign is putting out.

Lie number one: Prop. N will guarantee services. There is nothing in this initiative that guarantees services. It simply cuts poor people's income. The money saved goes back to the bureaucrats. Meanwhile, as many as 3,000 people are screwed.

Lie number two: Prop. N will help address the homeless crisis. Actually, Prop. N will increase homelessness. Homeless people will lose the flexibility to rent housing on their own. If some cheap housing becomes available, they will no longer have the funds to pay for it: under Prop. N, you have to have a receipt for rent before you get the money to pay it.

Individuals who live in marginal housing arrangements will no longer be able to pay for it. If they don't have a receipt or a letter from the leaseholder, they will lose their assistance. This will hit poor communities, where many are fearful of being evicted if the landlord finds they have unofficial residents, very hard.

Many hotel operators refuse to provide receipts, so individuals living in those places will become homeless.

Lie number three: Prop. N doesn't take money away from the homeless, it just changes the way it is spent. Prop. N does indeed take money away from the individual homeless person, and that same person will not see any direct benefit from the removal of that cash. Welfare recipients do work for their money at the equivalent of minimum wage, unless they are disabled or in a job-training program. Under Prop. N, they would still have to work – but get paid only $1.64 an hour.

Lie number four: Prop. N provides "services not cash – because we care." If proponents cared, they would spend all that campaign money directly on housing – not on billboards and commercials to mislead voters. Deep corporate pockets should be funding services for poor people, not running campaigns to slash welfare benefits.

Lie number five: Surrounding counties have already instituted this program and have been successful. This is simply not true. No counties in the region have done exactly what is being proposed in San Francisco. And those who have cut cash assistance or instituted vouchers have seen an increase in the number of homeless people, according to the San Francisco legislative analyst.

Lie number six: Other major cities, such as Seattle, Chicago, and New York, have instituted similar programs and have seen huge successes. Again, this is simply not true. Those cites have seen huge increases in the number of homeless people. The state of Illinois eliminated General Assistance in 1992 and last year saw 166,000 more people become homeless. New York has seen huge rises in the number of homeless people since 1998. Seattle gives full grants to homeless people.

Lie number seven: As a result of cash grants, there are more than 100 fatal overdoses every year on San Francisco's streets. There has not been a homeless death study since 1999. But, there was no evidence that homeless deaths are tied to receipt of cash assistance, then or now. Overdose-prevention reports from the Department of Public Health do not recommend cutting or replacing cash assistance.

Lie number eight: Impartial experts such as the director of the S.F. Department of Human Services and the director of the S.F. Department of Public Health support this initiative. These are not, by any stretch, impartial supporters. They were appointed to their positions by Mayor Willie Brown, who fully supports this initiative. If they want to keep their jobs, they support whatever the mayor tells them to support.

Lie number nine: All homeless people are addicts. That's really what the Prop. N campaign has been implying. There's no data on how many people who would be hit by this initiative are suffering from addictive disorders. But there are hundreds of people who now pay fees for substance-abuse treatment who would lose that treatment if Prop. N passes.

Lie number 10: Prop. N will go beyond fractious politics and finally address the issue of homelessness from sound public policy. Prop. N is fractious politics! The city has a homeless plan, titled "Continuum of Care," that was developed by more than 225 community members. Prop. N is directly contrary to the plan. Putting this on the ballot was terribly divisive.

Jennifer Friedenback is project coordinator at the Coalition on Homelessness.

repost from:
http://www.sfbg.com/36/51/x_oped.html

Gavin Newsome is a shady-ass buisinessman. He doesn't give a crap about the people of San Francisco. All he is trying to do is lure the big buisinesses into the city. This will let the Starbucks and Burger Kings edge out all of the small buisinesses who have lower prices, better service and better merchandice. Who the hell wants that? Why don't we vote against Newsome so that we can keep S.F. for the people instead of turning it into another Seattle of LA? Besides, Newsome's only real "plan" (Care Not Cash) is a hidden agenda that is trying to clear the homeless out of San Francisco like a farmer chases rats out of his wood-pile...where is the love between fellow humans?