Taking advantage of the distraction caused by the U.S. government�s recent shenanigans, which include deportation, harassment, and clandestine internment of citizens, immigrants, and political dissidents, Supervisor Gavin Newsom, utilizing the Hearst and Fang media to advance the agenda of his wealthy constituents and business partners, has declared war on the poorest of the poor in San Francisco. By patronizing an anxious public with empty promises of squeaky-clean sidewalks and a cop on every block, the deceptive wording of short-sighted Proposition N, also known as Care Not Cash, is another irresponsible example of the undermining of democracy. Using biometric imaging to criminalize poverty and disability is no solution to a very valid human challenge like homelessness. While large sectors of our city and entire districts find themselves marginalized, neglected, and then forgotten, Newsom�s District 2 is bathing in the glow of tax breaks for the rich, special treatment, and privately funded education, adding to an already disproportionate economic demographic in this multi-ethnic and diverse city.

The slick presentation of Prop N to a well-meaning but ill-informed populace caught in the throes of an uneasy political climate is cynical at best. Under the language of Proposition N as it was presented to the voters, treatment, medical care, housing, meals, and shelter were to be provided to the 2400 or so individuals and families who now depend upon county assistance to survive. Hypothetically, these services were to replace cash assistance. However, the reality of the situation is that there is no infrastructure in place to support such a broad and monolithic county expenditure. As the situation currently stands, as of July 1st, 1000 shelter residents are slated to lose their shelter beds under the Shelter Expulsions Ordinance, which is part of the DHS implementation plan according to Prop N. No alternative shelter will be offered to these 1000 people. They will simply have to fend for themselves on the street, where it simply is not safe. This month, the courts ruled that it was the Board of Supervisors and not the voters who had the option of cutting county assistance checks. That decision was a stay of execution for the poor, but 2400 people are still on death row. As it stands now, it looks as though Ordinance N could still devastate the lives of those most vulnerable. The judge�s decision to strike down Care Not Cash unfortunately only applies to 1000 of the 2400 homeless County Adult Assistance Program recipients. The other 1400, who are disabled, elderly, working mothers, and mentally ill residents, are still slated to have their checks cut to $59, effective July 1st, with no housing, no shelter beds, no care, and no other options.

A tiny .025% or less of the families, workers, and disabled Americans in San Francisco are homeless andcurrently receiving General Assistance in the form of cash grants. These people do not need to read the fine print or letter of the law to spell opportunism. It is outrageous that this cruel circus of homeless musical chairs has been dubbed �Care Not Cash� by an individual who has never worked an honest day in his life, considering the fact that Herr Newsom and his compadres on the Board just voted themselves a 66% raise. So even though there�s no care, we do know where the cash went.

So to those of us who have personally experienced the kind of care that Newsom and his minority ilk have in store for the poor of San Francisco, have no illusions that anything less than stepped-up police violence, alienation, and the curtailment of our human and civil rights is what is actually in store for us. During the recent anti-war protests, many people who have never known the experience of being homeless got an idea of just how brutal and indiscriminate the SFPD can be when doling out the will of the bourgeoisie.

I think one point that I�ve not heard addressed once by Gavin Christopher Newsom in his entire monologue to the wealthy constituents of District 2 is personal freedom of choice. If I am, for example, a cash grant recipient under the CAAP programs, and want to attend a trade school, or rent a space on a friend�s sofa with my monthly stipend; if I want to put an outfit together and look for work as a bareback or waiter, or even if I choose to (GOD FORBID!) join a young lady for dinner or a movie, under Ordinance N, my personal choice in this matter is completely stripped from me. What this debate is all about is human dignity. If implemented as currently crafted, Ordinance �N� will expel 1000 current shelter residents, cost the city millions in needless expenditures such as biometric imaging technology, police enforcement, property damage and loss of life, not to mention creative and human capital damage. It will, however, fatten the pockets of shelter overseers, the DHS, the DPW, the drug dealers who use the shelters as fronts, and other county parasites as they continue this game of homeless bait and switch. And, as Herr Newsom likes to say with such gleaming pride, �This is only the beginning.�

So we must ask ourselves, do we really want to simply join the ranks of racist, oppressive, and shortsighted cities such as Houston, Salt Lake, or Los Angeles, whose hate crime statistics against homeless people are disgusting? Or do we put ourselves in the moccasins of the displaced and forgotten and allow the poorest San Franciscans to fully blossom, and in doing so, add so much more color, integrity, and inner strength to a city reeling with Federal invasiveness and a general absence of equinimitable accountability on the part of coddled multi-national corporations such as Bechtel, Starbucks, PepsiCo, Gap Inc., and Chevron?

These are a few suggestions, which may offer pragmatic and real solutions to the challenges homeless men and women face in an overgrown and out of control capitalist market.
1) Close all shelters, thereby removing from the equation fat cats and parasites like Cecil Williams, who, entrusted with the well-being of tens of thousands of human beings, often have little or nothing to show in return for the astronomical amounts of money, resources, and commodities which they receive.
2) Utilize existing housing and urban development funds as matching funds to assist private, non-aligned groups such as Homes Not Jails in opening up empty building and units to squatters, students, and low-wage workers.
3) Create a liason between the city and squatters enhancing squatter�s rights at a time when housing will be most crucial.
4) Compartmentalize funding allocation so as to ensure against extensive city and county bureauracratic expenditures and cronyism.
5) Be pragmatic and real about freedom of personal choice. Don�t ask of others what you would not be willing to do yourself. Forcing a person to sacrifice 75% of their only income is inhumane and cruel. Personal choice is a right, after all, and exercising the basic right of personal choice is often the only real way poor people can improve their lot. A good example of this would be two, three, or more individuals or families pooling their resources to make ends meet or pay rent for a living space.