Religious Witness with the Homeless minister debates politician waging a war on homeless people
 |
|
by Alexandra Cuff/PNN community Journalist On Tuesday night I biked over to the Commonwealth club on Market Street to attend the Care Not Cash (Proposition N) debate between Supervisor Gavin Newsom and Sister Bernie Galvin, Executive Director of Religious Witness With Homeless People. Newsom is the main proponent of Prop. N whereas Galvin is opposing the proposition which would slash government assistance to $59 a month and replace it with an empty promise of services. Disheveled, I rushed in the east side of the building the same time the wind carried Newsom, quite polished, in from the west. On the single file escalator I was sandwiched between Gavin and a woman with ìYes on Nî door hangers peaking out of her Coach bag. Unlike both campaign rallies and campaign protests, the attendance seemed a solid mix of both supporters and opponents of Prop. N. Each side was given 3 minutes to introduce their arguments. Newsom began by stating that homelessness is an issue that ìtranscends political ideology.î With the admittance that homelessness is a complex social problem he was suggesting, with confidence, that we have reached a point where no discussions beyond a black and white ballot measure can create an effective and comprehensive homeless program. This opening statement struck me. If there is no room for political idealism regarding the ìissueî of homelessness, then why are we being asked to accept a solution that will serve a very specific political agenda of individuals seeking power?
He went on to point out that the number of "homeless deaths are symbolic of the problem" and that "whether we like it or not, the leading cause of death is drug use" and that the drug of choice to overuse is heroin. So as an introduction, Newsom identified homelessness as a problem in San Francisco and most of those homeless are heroin users. Even if there was proof that most of the folks who will be affected by this initiative are drug users (which there isnít), it wouldnít change the fact that Prop. N doesnít even address addiction or provide treatment. A common misconception of those leaning in support of Care Not Cash is that folks who are opposing CNC do not agree that homelessness is not being addressed. We know the system is broken, we just donít want to replace it with one that doesnít work.
Sister Bernie began resolutely, ìWe are frustrated.î She debated that Care Not Cash was not an answer to homelessness and declared that it ìplays on the fears instilled in us by the media.î She went on to debate that the supporters of Prop. N want to take money from the poor to cure the social ills of this city. She called Prop. N ìthe most egregious piece of legislation on homelessnessî she has ever seen.
Over the past few months of following the Care Not Cash dialogue in a variety of media sources, Iíve been asking myself a question: How and why are the folks who are working to create a compassionate, effective solution to homelessness not being taken seriously? Scores of community leaders, elected officials, community organizations, labor groups, and political clubs formed the Committee Against Increased Homelessness and are opposed to Prop. N. Is it not an insult that the work that organizations and individuals, many whom are formerly homeless and still at risk, whose mission is to confront poverty, are discounted when it comes to creating policy that will create permanent solutions to homelessness? It was like I handed the script of this question to Newsom and Galvin on Tuesday evening. We have a piece of legislation proposed to help homelessness and we have poverty scholars saying it will not work.
Sister Bernie closed her opening statement with 3 points: The welfare check is a life line to people. Slashing the amount of the check will lead to more deaths. Treatment is the answer. This is only the second time that Iíve seen Newsom speak ñ the first was at a CNC campaign rally. Without a Q&A session, there was no opportunity for folks to publicly ask him questions which would address the contradictions in Prop. N. When I heard that he and Sister Bernie would be discussing CNC, in the formal style of a debate, I was curious because I know that he has a scripted answer for everything. Well a mixture of relief and frustration came over me this evening. Sure, Newsom remained unruffled but at the same time, he wasnít saying anything! He never addressed the meat of the argument which is that CNC does not provide the services it guarantees.
Newsom crossed and uncrossed his legs and through smiling teeth exuding stutters of sound bites and statistics. ìSan Francisco has more homeless deaths than any other county ñ this is simply wrong.î He went on talk about how other cities, including Chicago and New York, have addressed homelessness by cutting down the welfare check. He assured us that CNC does indeed provide Care because the role of government, under legal mandate, is to provide care or cash and it would be illegal not to. He referred to the fact that the case the Religious Witness With Homeless People brought against CNC was rejected twice in court because contrary to what those who were suing said, the care is there! When Sister Bernie pointed out that all other cash reduction programs have resulted in increased homelessness and that Chicago sees over 120,000 new homeless people each year due to no cash aid, Newsom replied that Chicago took all cash aid away and that our plan isnít so austere. $59 a month! Not austere?
The moderator of this dialectic was Scott Shafer, host of KQEDís ìThe California Report.î He was handed a stack of questions passed up by members in the audience. The first question was for Gavin: ìAre you concerned about an increase in drug use and crime if the cash is taken away?î Newsom: ìNo, they will turn to treatment, not crime.î Shafer, ìwhy then do they not seek treatment now?î Newsom confidently assured us that they donít seek help now because by providing cash, we are enabling their addictions. Well Iíve never been addicted to heroin but I have friends that have and Iím now assuming that Gavin never has been either if he thinks that the want for heroin is going to fade with no money to buy it. But the main problem with this statement is again, the assumption that all the folks who will be affected by the cash cut are drug users.
Newsom went on to point out that San Francisco is a magnet for homeless people because of the cash aid provided. Again, he was not addressing the intrinsic issue that poverty is a social ill but was revealing the interest of the ìwell offî to keep the poor from being able to live in our city. Sister Bernie asked us to not only consider how many homeless there are living here but how many San Franciscans have become homeless while living in San Francisco. She said we ìhave to realize that people are effectively using this moneyî for renting SROs and pooling money for a room with other low and no income persons. The housing which is referred in Prop. N is ìa 2-inch mat on a shelter floor.î If Prop. N passes, people will be paying $300 a month to sleep on a floor of a shelter.
Gavin chuckled and in being ìas respectfulî as he could toward Sister Bernie, emphasized that housed and marginally housed persons will not be affected. As if he felt like a broken record, he stressed that if the City cannot provide services to homeless people, then individuals seeking these services will receive their original cash payment, leaving the homeless population no worse off. Sister Bernie nodded with no sign of returning Newsomís smile: ìIn 12 places in this proposition it says the money wonít be taken if services arenít available.î What the proposition doesnít say is that if the proposition is passed, a homeless individual must prove to that he or she has checked out all available services and found none available in the entire City before that individual receives payment.
I wonder if Gavin or anyone else who thinks this is a great idea, has ever waited in any line at DHS or has spent an evening checking every shelter in the City, each night tired for sleep, for a bed. If there is a one bed available in the City shelter system and the homeless individual has no means to get there, then he or she loses her benefit. I wonder which proponents of this solution have ever been harassed at a shelter to the point where they would rather sleep on the street. If a homeless person has been harassed at a shelter and that shelter has the only bed left in the City, he or she must sleep there. Otherwise, that person will have his or her benefits cut. One of the issues that, due to the 30 minute time constraint of the debate, was not discussed, was the fact that unless they are disabled or in job training,welfare recipients already work for the monthly welfare (pay)check (read: wages). Under Prop. N welfare recipients will be paid 27% of the minimum wage: $1.84 an hour!!!! We can not lose sight of what is happening here. This proposition is an all out attack on the already impoverished. It is an extension and a local version of the criminalization of the poor which is affecting folk all over the world. Hundredís of thousands are speaking out around the world in protest of Bushís maniacal threat of war in Iraq, people are gathering around the globe to demonstrate against the FTAA. The cognizance of this oppression and the resistance to it, are apparent wherever we look. The example of what the Bechtel Corporation is doing in Bolivia is revelatory. Bechtel is suing the Bolivian government for $25 million after having to withdraw a contract for the privatization of this poor countryís water due to civic demonstrations which said, no, you will not own our water. The people spoke up, the government heard, and now the corporation is punishing both for a lost projected profit. Here in San Francisco, hundreds of activists assembled on Sunday for the Poor Peopleís March in objection to ballot propositions N (Care Not Cash) and R (HOPE). Contrary to what the plutocracy think, who are trying to enforce their inane political agendas around the world, people know what is best for themselves and their families. This goes for the homeless and poor population living here in San Francisco. Sister Bernie pointed out Prop N's definition of "housing" as including a mat on the floor of a "shelter." In light of that inclusion, she warned that Prop N was |