Fraud Not Care

Given that the board of supes own legislative analysis shows that all the other jurisdictions made the switch for monetary concerns and that there is no statistical differentiation of deaths from GA then why rush in with an untested policy. Read the Supes own report on the issue. Maybe that is why it has bypassed the Board and been backed by business interests in a general election.

It would be foolish to go with an untested and politically motivated policy.

Read the report yourself:
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/leganalyst/reports/r052002.htm

'Recommendation--This study suggests that policies that are developed on the basis of anecdotal evidence, even though they are responsive to the hardening tide of public opinion, may lead to inefficient and ineffective use of public resources, or to punitive withdrawal of funds that are desperately needed and that have been shown to contribute to achieving their desired goals. Indeed, researchers in the field agree that requisite and adequate research and analysis be conducted before any distinct conclusions are made on this issue.'

It's possible the care not cash program is working even though it looks like it isn't because of the shelter getting more full. I was previously homeless and I stayed in the shelters here much longer than I needed too in order to qualify for a program called shelter plus care when it opened up. This sort of thing could be happening in NY. There could be increasing numbers of ppl in the shelters homeless because they want to get into the care not cash programs and to do this they need to prove there homelessness by staying in the shelters. Just a thought.

This War on the Poor has spread from coast to coast. One of the primary purposes has been to create a super-cheap labor force, which has enabled corporations to continue setting record-breeaking profits. Millions of Americans today no longer even have the right to the minimum wage.
Step by step, there have been efforts to move this agenda on to include "certain" disabled/seriously ill adults. "Certain" means "poor with dependent children". Wisconsin, under Gov. Tommy Thompson (now head of the US Dept. Health & Social Services) slashed aid to families headed by disabled parents, to "provide a work incentive". To give companies an incentive to hire these people, many were granted minimum wage waivers. I've personally done work for such companies as Ray-O-Vac and Friskies cat food for as little as $1.75 per hour. But this doesn't merely benefit the companies: nearly every dollar earned is then cut from remaining food stamps and SSI. So why don't these people just quit working? Simple. The state, sort of forgetting about ADA protections, had a habit of failing to inform these people about "retrospective budgeting", which makes quitting financially impossible. Under this policy, one continues to receive severely reduced benefits for at least two months after receiving a final paycheck. The catch is that these reduced benefits don't cover the most basic survival expenses.
This policy was a grim failure, and after three years, the work requirement was dropped, and full benefits were restored, with one exception: those who did find jobs, no matter how disability-inappropriate, remain chained to those jobs by retro budgeting.

This War on the Poor has spread from coast to coast. One of the primary purposes has been to create a super-cheap labor force, which has enabled corporations to continue setting record-breeaking profits. Millions of Americans today no longer even have the right to the minimum wage.
Step by step, there have been efforts to move this agenda on to include "certain" disabled/seriously ill adults. "Certain" means "poor with dependent children". Wisconsin, under Gov. Tommy Thompson (now head of the US Dept. Health & Social Services) slashed aid to families headed by disabled parents, to "provide a work incentive". To give companies an incentive to hire these people, many were granted minimum wage waivers. I've personally done work for such companies as Ray-O-Vac and Friskies cat food for as little as $1.75 per hour. But this doesn't merely benefit the companies: nearly every dollar earned is then cut from remaining food stamps and SSI. So why don't these people just quit working? Simple. The state, sort of forgetting about ADA protections, had a habit of failing to inform these people about "retrospective budgeting", which makes quitting financially impossible. Under this policy, one continues to receive severely reduced benefits for at least two months after receiving a final paycheck. The catch is that these reduced benefits don't cover the most basic survival expenses.
This policy was a grim failure, and after three years, the work requirement was dropped, and full benefits were restored, with one exception: those who did find jobs, no matter how disability-inappropriate, remain chained to those jobs by retro budgeting.

Everyone knows that "Care" Not Cash is a hoax. The question is why so many of the new San Franciscans are so eager to jump on such a rickety bandwagon. When I see that picture of the man on the Proposition N flyers, I do not suddenly decide that the myriad of current treatment programs are "just not doing enough" - I see a guy who was handed a fiver for his photo by a bunch of getty-rich crooks, not much different from the makers of the so-called "Bumfight" videos.

Everyone knows that "Care" Not Cash is a hoax. The question is why so many of the new San Franciscans are so eager to jump on such a rickety bandwagon. When I see that picture of the man on the Proposition N flyers, I do not suddenly decide that the myriad of current treatment programs are "just not doing enough" - I see a guy who was handed a fiver for his photo by a bunch of getty-rich crooks, not much different from the makers of the so-called "Bumfight" videos.

Everyone knows that "Care" Not Cash is a hoax. The question is why so many of the new San Franciscans are so eager to jump on such a rickety bandwagon. When I see that picture of the man on the Proposition N flyers, I do not suddenly decide that the myriad of current treatment programs are "just not doing enough" - I see a guy who was handed a fiver for his photo by a bunch of getty-rich crooks, not much different from the makers of the so-called "Bumfight" videos.

Someone I know told me that only 30% of the homeless live off GA, so even if this passes, the majority of homeless will be still here. So Newsom is already a loser.

This way nothing will really change. It's more like a big sign on Newsom's campaign - 'Kill Poor People.' And lot's in SF would probably agree to something like drugging homeless, or poisoning them, anything to make them leave. That's what happens when you're a millionaire, or are trying to pay every month your mortgage on your $800,000 shack. You'll gladly kill or drug anyone that bothers you.

this logic does not make sense. yes, the level of people in the shelters will go up since they will be off the streets... that is why it is 'care not cash'. i lived in nyc and saw this policy work - not perfect but it surely helped the situation.

Yes, of course the number of people in shelters has gone up. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LIVE ON THE STREET. To use this as an arguement as to why the system in NYC doesn't work is just plain stupid. Isn't that the goal? Give homeless people a place to go other than the street.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing strongly endorses State Proposition 46 (Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002).


What Will Proposition 46 Do? Proposition 46 will provide housing with services for the mentally ill and long-term homeless, shelters for battered women and homeless families, and affordable housing for working people, low-income individuals and families. Proposition 46 authorizes a $2.1 billion affordable housing bond.

Do We Need Proposition 46? Yes. On any given day, over 360,000 Californians are homeless. The lack of affordable housing in California contributes to an increase in the number of homeless residents. Proposition 46 helps correct this. Without adequate housing, many homeless individuals and families have no choice but to sleep in cars, parks and hospitals, or on the streets. The problem is particularly severe for homeless persons with health problems.

Will Proposition 46 Really Help the Homeless? Yes. Proposition 46 provides homeless residents with mental health and other chronic health disabilities with affordable, clean, safe supportive housing. Supportive housing works. The State's current supportive housing programs show that 96% of the formerly homeless residents remain in supportive housing. With Proposition 46, more homeless persons will have access to supportive housing and will not resort to living on the streets. Proposition 46 allocates $195 million to supportive housing through bond funds.

Any Other Benefits from Proposition 46? Yes. Proposition 46 provides accessibility improvements to apartments for disabled Californians and loan assistance for military veterans, teachers, police and firefighters. Proposition 46 also creates 276,000 jobs and brings in more than $13 billion in private investment and federal funds into California.

CSH urges you to vote Yes on Proposition 46 on November 5th!

i have been off the streets for about 3 or so years now.if you want things to get better put some work into the p