|
by Andrew DellaRocca/PNN Community Journalist
"I think it sounds like a good idea," said my friend Janet as I served her
another pint of Stella from behind the counter. "I mean, if they are going
to take away the money and instead guarantee the services, that's not a bad
idea." Her nose, flushed red from the alcohol, glared distinctly amidst the
oppressive dim lighting of the bar. I leaned toward her so that she could
hear me better, and tried to explain to her the reality of the legislation.
My forearm mistakenly banged against the tap for the Bass Ale keg.
"But there is no guarantee of services," I told her. Bass ale poured
aimlessly out of the spout, overflowing the drain and spilling over the side
of the keg fridge. I leaned further to make sure I was heard, not noticing
the beer which splashed against my pants. "That's the message that they
have been putting across, but the literature of the actual legislation does
not demand that the city guarantee anything."
"But I thought the services were definitely going to be provided."
"The care isn't there." I emphasized. "F#*!"
I slammed the tap back into its place and grabbed a towel. A dark, damp
horseshoe arched over my groin from one thigh to the next. I tried to dry
it as best I could. Nobody wants to be served by a bartender who looks like
he can't control himself.
I've been subjecting myself frequently to such absent minded behavior.
Gavin Newsome's "Care Not Cash" initiative, which will be on the ballot as
Proposition N, has been a pure source of anguish and urgency for me. Many
of my friends and colleagues have been quoting the misleading
advertisements, or the deceptive statements perpetrated by the proposal's
petitioners, which say that Proposition N will guarantee services for
homeless people. When I try to explain what those promises actually are,
that they are lies, that the legislation on the ballot does NOT guarantee
any services, that it only reduces assistance to homeless people, I get so
caught up that I forget about my surroundings and do idiotic things like
walk into oncoming traffic, or spill beer all over myself.
Those who are aware that they are being deceived have decided to bring a
lawsuit against the Department of Elections. Unfortunately, the Lawyer's
Committee on Civil Rights, together with Religious Witness with Homeless
People and a few registered voters, who filed the suit, were denied a
hearing by San Francisco Superior Court Judge A. James Robertson. The judge
ruled that regardless of whether voters may be misled by any statements in
the Voter Information Pamphlet, any changes to the language would be too
difficult and too expensive to make at this point.
The lawsuit alleges that both the original petition, circulated to place the
initiative on the ballot, and the Voter Pamphlet contain numerous false and
misleading statements about the operation of Proposition N. For example,
many people who signed the petition have since complained about being told
that the legislation would "guarantee services," when in fact the ordinance
says that the cash grants would be reduced to pay for services "already
available," services which are obviously insufficient. The ballot materials
also refer to "guaranteed services" and state that the city would be
required to provide housing and services for the homeless, despite there
being no such requirement included in the literature of the actual
legislation. In addition, the summary of the initiative prepared by the
Ballot Simplification Committee, which will appear on November's ballot,
incorrectly states that benefits would be reduced based on services
"provided" to homeless individuals. In fact, the ordinance would require
grant reductions based more broadly on the value of any services "available"
to homeless people, even if the services are never provided.
"Proposition N is not about that you will actually get the services,"
Jennifer Friendenbach of the Coalition on Homelessness told me over the
telephone. "The grant money will go toward the services already there. If
one person gets a bed, it's deducted from everyone's check, whether or not
the bed is for you.
"What the Court essentially said was that the truth is too expensive to
print. San Franciscans deserve a fair election. Proposition N does not
guarantee services, provide services, or even ensure services are provided
before the grant is cut. Proposition N simply strips poor people of the
income they need to get off the streets."
The suit was filed pro bono by the law firm of Munger, Tolles and Olson,
together with the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights. The petitioners are
considering an appeal of the judge's ruling.
"Because Proposition N is so broad in its impact, and since very few of the
voters on November 5th will have ever been homeless or worked in San
Francisco's homeless program, it is incredibly important that the language
about this proposition in our handbook is clear, neutral, and accurate,"
said Sister Bernie Galvin of Religious Witness with Homeless People.
Unfortunately for San Franciscans, unless an appeal is heard, the misleading
information included on the ballot materials will continue to obscure the
true nature of Proposition N, and voters may mistakenly vote for the
ordinance without knowing for what it is they are voting. And unfortunately
for me, if people continue to be officially deceived by the Department of
Elections, I might get hit by a car.
| 
