The Play’s the Thing
Care-Not-Cash meets the Coalition on
Homelessness, and no one wins
By
Betsey Culp
Yesterday evening was cold. Even the hookers stationed
on Folsom were bundled up, and out on the avenues a cold wind was
blowing in from the ocean. As I drove down Taraval, a wedge of seven
cops-on-motorcycles passed me and I knew that the curtain was about to
go up on the latest scene in the city’s ongoing political drama.
Even the most tuned-out San Franciscan knows that
Supervisor Gavin Newsom is sponsoring a ballot measure called
The Care Not
Cash Initiative, designed to “provide all homeless
San Franciscans without dependents, who qualify for aid through the
County Assistance Programs, food, shelter/housing and health services
replacing the majority of existing cash grants with these guaranteed
services.” In Act I, staged a couple of weeks ago, the District 2 supe
and his troops fanned out across the city a couple and gathered 23,000
signatures to place the proposal on the November ballot. In the present
Interlude before Act II, when the official campaign begins in August,
Newsom has been busily raising popular consciousness and money. One
scene played out last night, outside the office of Cal Insurance &
Associates, on Taraval at 33rd Avenue.
Inside the low-slung building, representatives of the
business community gathered for a fundraiser. Business must be better
than the media have let on, because these were a well-fed lot,
substantial of flesh and broad of beam. Outside, the Designated
Opponents of the measure marched back and forth, chanting in English and
Spanish. They were decidedly less well fed and wearing outfits that
would have made Our
Mayor
cringe. All around the edges, on every corner, along the sidewalk, and
less conspicuously on each surrounding side street, were SFPD officers
and their vehicles. Just waiting.
But
this confrontation was ceremonial, as all parties well knew. The goal on
both sides was not to convince, but to attract attention. Not a bad
goal: that’s the beginning of a successful election campaign. Each side
hyped its message a little. A demonstrator with a microphone thanked the
group for gathering on “such short notice,” when in fact the word had
gone out last week. (On July 12 the Call posted notices of both the fund
raiser and the demo in its Calendar.)
Frank
Gallagher, an unabashed proponent of the initiative, who was highly
visible at the event, wrote later in an Examiner news story that the
protesters mobbed Newsom when he appeared and “ultimately, police had to
escort him into the building.” Not quite. The supervisor walked by
himself across the street and through the gathering of police and
demonstrators. There were officers standing in the doorway. Perhaps they
escorted him inside.
This play is part of an old old San Francisco story,
retold and re-embroidered over many decades: The Nice People meet the
Disreputables. The Good Folk meet the Riffraff. It makes wonderful copy.
In an earlier incident, in August 1864, a hotshot
reporter named Sam Clemens covered a meeting of the Second Ward
Democratic Club during another election campaign. Clemens’s paper, the
Daily Morning Call, supported the re-election of President Abraham
Lincoln. The Democrats did not. It was probably a rather dull meeting,
but here’s how a master scene-setter transformed it:
Last evening some fifty persons, perhaps, chiefly of
the Copperhead persuasion, assembled in the “Democratic Club Room” on
the corner of Stockton and Filbert streets, for the purpose of
effervescing a little. “Conservative Democratic” imaginations pictured
it a grand rally of persecuted and hunted down patriots. A rational
person saw nothing there but aberrated beings, hugging the bugbear of
martyrdom and iterating the formula laid down by the secret agents of
Jeff. Davis’ Government.
You can imagine what the Democratic press, if it
survived in those wartorn days, made of the meeting.
All’s fair in love, war, and American politics, and
yesterday’s scene is sure to be played out again, and again, and again,
in the coming months. The re-runs will get the public’s attention, if
not in the media, then among the people whose neighborhoods form their
setting. A little group of four men gathered across the street from the
insurance office, a Greek chorus quietly discussing the proposal and
other related city issues. One announced, with an edge to his voice,
“We’d better give them their drug money, because otherwise they’ll kill
your wives and mothers for it.” But when another suggested that not all
homeless people were drug addicts and that life on the streets was
pretty harsh, the first began to soften his hostility, recalling that
he’d seen drunken yuppies urinating on the streets more often than
homeless men and women.
The re-runs will provide a kind of PR that neither side
can buy. In November, no one in San Francisco will be unaware that Care
Not Cash is appearing on the ballot. And when the curtain falls on
November 5, the initiative may even have passed. But – particularly if
the economy continues to stumble – will it actually do much good? Or
will it be yet another band-aid on a festering sore? Worse, will its
creation-by-confrontation heighten the inter-class tensions that are
already rumbling through our city’s neighborhoods, so that a cure is
even harder to achieve?
Gavin Newsom has outlined his proposal in a
Chronicle op-ed piece. (For the record, months ago,
when the initiative was merely a gleam in the good supervisor’s eye, the
Call offered him space to answer his critics, in an attempt to start a
thoughtful discussion. Newsom declined, feeling either that our readers
had already made up their minds or that our limited circulation wasn’t
worth the effort.)
The Coalition on Homelessness and other opponents of the
initiative accuse Newsom of lying, of pretending that the cash which
formerly went to homeless people will be used for services when in fact
there is no guarantee that it will. The problem they see is the use of
the nonbinding word “may,” as in the following provisions (emphasis
added):
(h) To promote the transition of General Assistance
recipients to gainful employment, the Executive Director of the
Department of Human Services may establish an Earned Income and
Asset Disregard Program for the recipients who are employed.
Sec. 20.60.12. Funding. A baseline appropriation for
housing and related services provided as in-kind aid shall be
established using the City and County of San Francisco FY 2002-2003
Annual Appropriation Ordinance and any supplemental appropriations for
the amount of cash aid payments to applicants and recipients who
declare themselves to be homeless.… This funding may be used to
support, but shall not be limited to, some or all of the following:
hotel master lease programs, permanent supportive housing,
improvements of conditions in existing shelters, expansion of shelter
capacity, mental health and substance abuse treatment, outreach, a
fund for rental deposits, SSI advocacy programs, rep-payee services,
case management and meals for the homeless population through direct
services and/or contracts.
When will the city's playgoers leave the theater and
demand their money back?