|
by The Coalition on Homelessness
Things are getting bad for homeless people in San Francisco. It is
pouring rain, and since Christmas is gone and past, the powerfuls’
hearts are turning into stone. Guilliani is now considered a saint
(forget how he recommended pulling children away from their mothers
if they could not do workfare because they had no childcare). Newsom
is running for Mayor on an "anti-homeless because I am a
compassionate man" platform. We got problems:
1) Newsom will be introducing anti-panhandling legislation that
would include medians, parking meters, and any place people wait in
line. This is following the other madness about creating a whole lot
of bureaucracy instead of solutions including homeless department etc.
2) Patrick Hoge did an article on the front page of the
Sunday paper on how San Francisco is looking towards New York to solve homelessness.
3) Check out January 2nd’s editorial page in the
Chronicle. It is a huge piece on why New York is so great in the way
it treats homeless people. We will be sending out our official
position on this soon. New York has over 20,000 shelter beds where
people are institutionalized. Still homeless. Sounds like they
solved this problem. They still have thousands outside.
All these pieces show a lack of investigative journalism. It is hard to
tell the difference between the editorials and the articles. They
push for a particular direction in homeless policy—zero tolerance
without the presence of solutions. No real analysis of the cause of
homelessness. No examination at the issues over time of how it has been handled
by SF over time. No questioning of where homeless people went in New
York. Just "there are no homeless people in Manhattan, Let's be
Manhattan"
Newsom is, as you know, also pushing centralized intake. The
Chronicle is loving this. It is the bureaucracy's dream. More red
tape, a lot of expenditures and homeless people don't benefit at all.
Newsom wants fingerprints. The Chronicle wants photos of each
homeless person. And of course the fuel for the bureaucracy, the
needed and ever cherished "data", data so good it doesn't matter how
much we spend on it. How we love to study poor people. Study them
further into poverty. We now spend $500,000 for centralized intake
for four family shelters. Ouch. That could fund a whole new
program. We spent $12,000,000 for substance abuse centralized intake
and it failed. Meanwhile we have thousands of people on waiting
lists, and lots of lost lives.
The piece also contains a hit on the Coalition on Homelessness. How
we fight for people's right to refuse shelter. This on a rainy day
and all the shelters full.
As you know we all have been working for substance abuse and mental
health treatment on demand, housing, childcare, living wage jobs,
and fair benefits. We also have demanded that until these exist, we
must protect the civil and human rights of those forced to remain on
the streets.
But, the "decision makers" are looking for someone to blame, so they
are blaming homeless people and their organization, the Coalition on
Homelessness.
Please respond to the editorial, and put pressure on the Chronicle.
We are a one-newspaper town, and we need some fair reporting.
e-mail them at letter@sfchronicle.com - you should also send any
letter to the writers as well - their first initial, last name and
sfchronicle.com (Rachel Gordan did the anti-panhandling and Patrick
Hoge the New York model).
Here is the Chronicle editorial:
WE LIKE to think that we're 'The City That Knows How.' And, for the
most part, we deserve our reputation as a community whose spirit is
as distinctive as our spectacular views of San Francisco Bay and the
Golden Gate Bridge.
Yet, as Chronicle staff writer Patrick Hoge recently revealed, San
Francisco trails New York City in helping the homeless.
This is hardly news to any Bay Area residents who have recently
walked the streets of Manhattan, then hopped a plane back home and
found themselves shocked by scenes of homeless men and women living
on the streets of San Francisco.
Anyone who visited Manhattan 10 years ago knows just how much its
streets have changed since New York City expanded its system of
shelters and treatment centers for its homeless population.
Here's what is different in New York City. The city refuses no
homeless person a bed. The centralization of its social services
means that every person who enters the system is registered and
photographed. When a homeless person appears at a different shelter,
outreach workers can quickly decide where the person needs to be
referred.
New York's shelter system, moreover, provides voluntary long-term
treatment for mental illness and substance abuse, two of the major
causes of homelessness. Nearly all of New York City's shelters are
integrated into mandatory, structured, rehabilitative programs. In
addition, the citywide program offers education, counseling and
employment services for those who are able to work.
In contrast, San Francisco's method of helping the homeless can best
be described as disorganized. According to the Chronicle's research,
the city spends approximately $200 million on programs associated
with the homeless -- mostly by subcontracting services to nonprofit
organizations. Without any centralized records, however, the city is
unable to track what services have been given, or what an individual
needs when he or she appears at another shelter.
The problem is not the nonprofits, but rather the lack of
coordination among services. Shelters rarely provide treatment for
mental illness or substance abuse. Nor do they provide the homeless
with counseling, training or work. As a result, San Francisco offers
the homeless revolving-door protection from the elements, but not the
integrated services provided by its East Coast counterpart.
Interestingly, New York and San Francisco have about the same number
living on the streets. New York officials estimate that some 3,000
individuals are living outdoors. A recent census study counted 3,136
homeless in the City by the Bay.
Yet, the amount of money spent on the homeless is dramatically
different. New York's state constitution declares that 'aid, care and
support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the
state and by such of its subdivisions.' Advocates for the homeless
have used this language to force the city to provide shelter and
services for every homeless person. New York State spends $150
million for the city's shelter system alone.
California's Constitution, by contrast, guarantees no such services
to the poor or needy. The state, moreover, spends only $2 million on
San Francisco's homeless programs and gives merely $91 million for
similar services scattered across the state.
The political climate also is vastly different in this city. San
Francisco's Coalition on Homelessness, a nonprofit advocacy group,
has consistently resisted all efforts to track the homeless. Its
position is that such a database would invade the privacy of the
homeless. Nor have homeless advocates tried to force the city to
provide shelter for every homeless person.
Rather, the coalition's view is that the homeless have a right to
refuse shelter.
We disagree. As does San Francisco Supervisor Gavin Newsom, who has
recently taken up the city's homeless problem. In addition to
proposing an independent Department of Homeless Services, Newsom also
wants the city to establish a centralized system that offers
long-term treatment, as well as training and incentives to work.
Unlike other politicians, Newsom doesn't look for a quick fix,
otherwise known as 'cracking down on the homeless.' Crackdowns simply
scatter the homeless to other neighborhoods. They neither help the
homeless nor the urban dwellers who seek safer streets.
To be sure, New York City provides a model of the possible, but
certainly not a blueprint for what will work in San Francisco. Our
goal must be to provide coordinated, integrated services for the
homeless. What's lacking, however, is state funding, as well as the political
will to help the homeless reclaim their lives.
We've said it before: There is nothing moral or just about allowing
people to live on the streets of our city.
| 
