Yuppies Starting To Take Over: Where Did SF Go Wrong?

Really, there should be a nausea or vomiting warning at the top of this thread! Another corporation imitating a human being.

Each one of these idiot yuppies fell for The Newsom Corporation's gimmick - 'let them THINK we're doing something about homelessness, when its actually meaningless . .. ' This huge hype to affect only 30% of all the homeless?? God, are yuppies idiots or what!!! It's a simple transparent ploy for power by feeding into yuppies weaknesses - neuroses about control of their environments.

If someone came up with a homelessness plan that was, instead, simply providing appropriate yuppie clothing to street dwellers - J Crew, Coach, Banana Republic - and hiring someone to go around and do their hair once a week, this pathetic bunch would quickly lose interest in bothering with them.

They'd gladly euthanize anyone who doesn't fit their look.

The fact is, mayors come and go - Frank Jordan and his rediculous Matrix program is a good example - and each one of them makes big plans about homelessness, but in the end, nothing changes. The plan reverts to the same that it was before they came into office, 'continuum of care.'

LOSERS!!!!!!!!

I just don't understand how they could all have such greasy hair. What exactly do these people put in their hair to make it like that?

that is an accurate observation. there is a common trend among their hair. Maybe it is a retro fashion that is designed to evoke a previous era. Is it hairspray?

http://www.gavinnewsom.com/
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/supervisors/newsom.htm
http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2001/08_September/gavin_in_love.htm
http://www.channel2000.com/sh/entertainment/ontheset/entertainment-ontheset-19991214-002722.html

http://www.plumpjack.com/

Take away the nazis money and he will probably lose his power...

C'omon, are Alioto or Ammiano going to be able to take The Newsome Coproration?

We need a better candidate - has anyone considered Matt Gonzalez? I think he'd be good because he could really inspire people the way Ammiano did a couple of years ago. Don't know if he's considered it. What's the deadline for filing for the intent to run?

We need to come at it from all directions, taking the corporate person down, and building up a live person candidate who can actually pull it off to win.

Ammiano was a myth before, a hope, and now he's a reality that won't really excite people. Alioto has done some great stuff, but she doesn't have the base and the postiion to show what she's capable of.

Matt has shown what he stands for. Maybe he has a higher calling.

Thoughts anyone? We're in trouble here unless we can do a make-over on Ammiano.

http://www.indybay.org/calendar/event_display_detail.php?event_id=1217&day=25&month=10&year=2002

If a riot starts in the Marina at 6 and suddenly 1000 bikes showed up...

People should be in town for the 26th and alot of people want something based more around class than the IAC demos so...

If you're intent is to defeat Newsome AND build a radical movement than it's best to attack and all the candidates (their policy proposals, commitments, personal shortcomings etc) while forwarding a critique of "democracy" -- emphasizing, in particular, that real power under capitalism doesn't arise from the voting booth, but instead, in corporate boardrooms, financial markets and huge pools of collective capital.

I for one am not interested in rallying working class and poor people to participate in this electoral charade. Pro-voting leftists seem to think that liberal political wannabes are assisted when their names are connected with "the left", when in fact, the opposite is true. Self-identified leftists who're inclined to vote are already going to vote for the most liberal candidate as it is. Their isn't much more milk in that stone. Whether you like it or not, elections are decided by the votes of the (relatively) comfortable "middle-class" -- this is particularly true in gentrified SF.

Suffice to say, if you want a liberal to win, attack him or her unceasingly.

Great, voting wont change things much, I agree, but what exactly do you propose right now as your short term alternative?

Protests are better, union actions even better BUT shouldnt we at least try to prevent things like prop N. Sitting back and saying that protesting a ballot measure isnt radical enough seems like it just gives the far right more power if the alternative is just sitting around and complaining.

Prop N will directly hurt many people in SF, its not really a theoretical issue.

A protest against N in the Marina could just be an electoral protest or it could be more radical, its up to the more radical types to show up.

I was responding to Bov's post in which he asks whether Matt Gonzalez should be drafted as a mayoral candidate.

As to Proposition N -- I have very strong doubts that a demonstration by assorted leftists, anarchos, etc., will IN ANY WAY assist its defeat. Newsome, I'm sure, would welcome such an event because it's likely to galvanize more votes FOR Prop N than against. Why? Because actual voters (as opposed to theoretical voters -- a very very big difference) are more apt to be turned off by such displays than not.

Democracy works best at getting capital's subjects to think in terms of administering the present set-up -- in other words, thinking according to capital's logic. What I was getting to in my last post was that as radicals we should be fighting to re-frame the questions and striking at the systemic roots. So long as capital's rule goes unquestioned -- and continues to produce increased poverty, cut-backs etc -- shucksters like Newsome will be able to come along and present "commons-sense solutions" to problems of its making. When self-identified radicals jump aboard LIBERAL CAMPAIGNS DESTINED TO FAIL they neither assist said campaigns nor -- and far more importantly in my mind -- radical movements for transformative change.

To illustrate, I would argue that the LA Riots of 92 were far more instrumental in Clinton's 1992 victory over Bush Sr. than were erstwhile leftists and progressives who supported his presidency. Likewise, the Critical Mass riot of several Summers ago was far more effective in pushing change for bikers in SF than years of reasonable bike activism.

If we look at Nixon's actual policies they were further to the left (in many respects) than Clinton's for two reasons that speak to the thrust of my argument: 1) US capitalism was in a less severe situation under Nixon and thus less inclined to impose austerity; and 2) Nixon's administration was met with wide-scale and (incipient) anti-capitalist resistance.

I don't live in SF but would probably summon the energy to vote against it if I did, for, as 'um' says, it's effects are clear and will surely be detrimental to many poor San Franciscans. But I would have no illusion that the votes of people like me will determine the outcome of the vote.

By my definition,whenever you're engaging in electoral activity you're engaging in liberal activity, for the "system" will not countenance anything that goes fundamentally against the rule of capitalism (my definition of radical). That being the case, it's silly to bring a radical or leftist or anarchist aesthetic to electoral campaigns. It causes cognitive dissonance and DOESN'T WORK.

Precinct walking and its accompanying phone banking wins campaigns. Every precinct we walk, we win. This protest may have had some value but it cannot win any campaign. While voting is not everything, it is important to vote on the propositions. As to people, it takes a labor movement to promote a serious labor candidate. No Democrat or Republican is worthy of the consideration of the workingclass.

As to candidates, Gavin Newsom cannot possibly become mayor as he is only 33. One needs to be over 40 to become mayor in San Francisco. He also has no mass base whatsoever. While the property owners always vote in every election, in a high voter turnout election, as the governor's general election is, the tenants are 50% of the voters. The tenants, who are most of the workingclass of San Francisco, are also significant in the mayor's race. At this point, Angela Alioto is in an excellent position of winning the mayor's race. She not only has her successful supervisorial campaigns and her family political connections, she has been actively promoting public power, the Sunshine laws, endorsed No on N, No on R and Yes on D, is always pro-labor, and has strong support in the black community because of her successful lawsuits against racist, discriminatory corporations. Her weaknesses are that she is a Democrat, supports the national Democratic Party ticket (president, etc.), and supported both the football and baseball stadium swindle. These are not considered weaknesses by most Democratic Party voters and this city votes 70% to 80% Democrat.

The No on N campaign can win if, along with the No on R campaign, we push all tenant voters to the polls. The No on R campaign is the strongest motivation in getting the tenants to the polls as there is nothing more important in this town to the workingclass than rent control. The single most important issue on the ballot for most tenants is Prop R, the repeal of rent control.

The progressive community wins all campaigns in San Francisco by pushing the tenants to the polls. We usually have at least 10% of the property owners with us, and property owners vote in every election. Our job is to push the tenants to the polls, and for that, we must walk and call as many precincts as possible. We also have very good momentum now with the 3 major campaigns: Yes on D, No on N and No on R. And, believe it or not, it does help that the Democratic Party is officially Yes on D, No on N and No on R. So, everyone, let's all get out there whenever possible and walk those precincts and make those phone calls.

But she's been out of any seat for a while now, even though she has actively promoted good stuff, and sadly, is also a democrat.

Also, take a look out in the avenues and in the Sunset (which I've been walking for the past two weekends) - every three houses has a care not cash sign. Newsom will NOT be easy to beat. Every republican and homeowner in the city will vote for him, regardless of his age. Is there a law about that?

The mayor's race is decided by the combined progressive forces in San Francisco. I too have walked precincts in the Avenues these past 2 months, also known as the low density areas of San Francisco, and the Sunset and Richmond are filled with non-citizens these days as well. The high density areas are the workingclass tenant communities. I have seen the signs for Prop N on the wealthiest of homes, but not on all homes, and those signs are rare East of Twin Peaks in the tenant areas. It is people who vote, not money, and we, the tenants, teach that to landlords in every election that we have to oppose them, when they spend $1 million and loose.

It certainly matters to most voters that Angela Alioto is over 40 (in fact, over 50) and a Democrat, and has been very politically active since Willie Brown was allowed to steal the mayor's race from her in 1995, which she would easily have won as president of the Board of Supervisors. Those of us who do not vote for Democrats or Republicans do not count in the mayor's race. We are, believe it or not, a minority. A good way to comprehend that fact is to watch this year's returns. While Pete Camejo of the Greens will do reasonably well in San Francisco, and may win an astounding 20% of the vote (I am being generous), Democrat Gray Davis will win the majority of San Francisco's votes. It is the governor's race and the president's race that is the best barometer of how willing the voters are ready to leave the Democrat-Republicans. The Green vote for Camejo sends a signal to the Democrats that they must cater to the Left if they are to remain in office in San Francisco, not to the right. The 15% who regularly vote Republican will have to live with the fact that it is the Left that matters in San Francisco, not the Right. The reason those of us who oppose both the Democrats and Republicans from the Left are a minority is because there is no labor movement.

As to age, there is no law, but it matters to the voters. Most voters are over age 40, and a significant percentage (perhaps 20%) are over age 60. Someone in their 30s is viewed as a kid, and his campaign a joke, by the over 40 age group, and especially the over 60 age group. The mayor's position is awarded to someone who has a long-term political frame of reference, the same long-term frame that the over 40 age group understands and knows very well.

I have described Alioto's accomplishments since the 1995 mayor's race and while they may not seem important to the readers of this website, they are important and very well-known to most voters. As the mayor's race develops, you will see the whole show we call the mayor's race in San Francisco. It is the same every 4 years. The person with the broadest base, deepest roots, most maturity and best name recognition is Angela Alioto. She represents the same San Francisco tradition that the current Board of Supervisors represents, and that is a very old and strong tradition.

It’s really outrageous that common decent people have to be harassed by misguided people like you folks. It really shows just shows infantile and immature most of you are.
Debate is a much better way to impose your thoughts about your ideas instead of harassment.

It’s really outrageous that common decent people have to be harassed by misguided people like you folks. It really shows just shows infantile and immature most of you are. Debate is a much better way to impose your thoughts about your ideas instead of harassment.

I hope you're right about Angela. She has done a lot of good stuff - I remember her being out there to pep talk people on the first public power precinct walks, and talking about the analysis she'd done on the homeless, that there were at least 5 different categories, etc. I would love it if she could do it. What about Ammiano? And, will the IRV be in place by then? If so, maybe it doesn't matter if they're both in the race.

I'm glad to see the perspective on age - but look at GW, how old was he??? The other factor is the low turnout for most elections, particularly with tenants who are too cool to vote or bother with it, much less to register. Lots of people I know in the activist mvmt think voting is a waste of time and look down on anyone talking about politics. The Iraq debate got a lot of them involved, however, which was amazing to see. But in general, we'll really have to work to get them out. What would galvanize tenant voters to come out in the same way that N is galvanizing the conservatives?

The other thing, The Chronicle. The Chron seems to have already decided that D will win and N will win - at least that's the sense I get from the things they've written recently. I do think N can lose, and I know it is drawing people in to volunteer against it faster than most other props. But the Chron has been abusive to no on N.

Do you have any sense of who the Chron would support for mayor?

Also - a zillion questions here - any thoughts on District 4 or the Eileen Hansen race?

See comment posted to another article and THINK ABOUT IT!:

. . . to impose your thoughts about your ideas instead of harassment."


Tell that to the cops.

This article is nothing short of vitriolic hogwash.

There's no doubt that many San Francisco voters are missing the full picture on the deeply problematic Prop. N. Furthermore, it's obvious that Newsom is stepping on the homeless as a rung in his ladder to power. But, what does the notion of "Yuppies" taking over the city have to do with anything?

Everyone I know is sick and tired of San Francisco's failing efforts in a losing battle to serve the needs of its homeless citizens. That well-heeled young adults -- my peers -- happen to think Newsom's ideas are good is not due to some deep flaw in our genetic makeup or ghoulish hatred for the homeless. It's simply a case of deep misunderstanding coupled with a desire to help.

Posting pictures of people wearing Gap outfits with names like "invasion_of_the_yuppies6" is a ridiculous waste of time -- time which would be better spent trying to educate people who might vote "Yes" on prop N in a manner which they might understand: peaceable and informed debate.

p.s. I live in Oakland and can't vote for N. But, if I could, I'd vote No.

"my peers -- happen to think Newsom's ideas are good is not due to some deep flaw in our genetic makeup or ghoulish hatred for the homeless. It's simply a case of deep misunderstanding coupled with a desire to help. "

Let me think about this. The 20 something dot com goons came into SF resulting in thousands of evictions and a wholesale destruction of many communities and we are supposed to respect these people because they "care" about us? Im sure they can move away and find nice houses in other parts of the country with all the money they stole before their scams went under.

and hasn't been for quite sometime. I mean look at North Beach for example, remember that used to be the Bohemian section of the city at one point. Have any of you guys been out there recently, like within at least the past five years? There should be no surprise that these people are out campaigning for this, the young republicans league took up shop here some time ago. Did anyone realize who has been the mayor for the past two terms? What do you guys think King Willie is progressive? At all? Who elected him?

The sad thing is while this is happening more and more people can't find jobs, the economy is shit. If these laws pass more money will be taken away from those who need it, that's true yes they do. Whether or not they use it for the right reasons thats a different matter. But there is no reason to cut taxes on the super wealthy a year ago, and then feel like we need to cut aid on the fucking homeless. Come on, who needs the money more, some schlep who wants another mercedes or a homeless person? But no will cut the aid to the homeless. We'll support a war in a severely damaged economy that will most definitely prove costly. We will give ten billion dollars in aid to Israel to support their war for the last 2 years (that's what Sharon is asking for Bush right now), but to give money to the homeless, to put money into bettering the economy, that seems outlandish for some people when they can still kill Arabs in the middle east. People need aid right now, there should be more on the ballots to give that, and less to take it away.

"It's simply a case of deep misunderstanding coupled with a desire to help"

Why are college-educated people who are making hundreds of times the salaries of homeless and low income people, prey to situations of 'deep misunderstanding" when it comes to voting?

Why are *these* people *this* irresponsible and unable to see through the transparent lies?

They sure seem to do their homework when its time to reap maximum profits through tax breaks on income from capital gains, finding real estate, choosing the correct style of clothing, aquiring Giants tickets, using the PDA, or getting the dinner reservations.

But when it comes time to vote, to be responsible, they suddenly can't figure out what's going on, can't be bothered to look into anything, and instead, simply check whatever box 'seems' right, or else just the same box they checked the last time around.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Anyone who has had the education these people have had should know to always look at more than one source for their info - if they aren't bothering to it's sheer laziness, irresponsibility, and in this case - where we are talking about the lives of the most vulnerable people in the society - fascism.

If they don't understand the issue, can't be bothered to check it out, they shouldn't vote on it.

>->->->Come on, who needs the money more, some schlep who wants another mercedes or a homeless person?

Redistribution of wealth is not the answer and never will be. One playbook, one play. That's why you're getting whipped.

"One playbook, one play"

No facts or examples backed up by any research, just another sports fan using baseless sports metaphors.

no wonder.

And that you don't understand it emboldens me

They are people we often ignore and avoid. They wander the streets, take shelter under bridges and sleep in parks. What is it like to be mentally ill and homeless on the streets of San Francisco? What about family members who are desperately trying to reconnect with their loved ones? According to the California Department of Mental Health, an estimated 50,000 mentally ill people in California sleep on the street each night, and thousands more go to jail or are hospitalized. The city of San Francisco estimates that 70 percent of its homeless residents are mentally ill or substance abusers -- or both

Hope on the Street looks at the lives of people who have spent time on the streets while living with their mental illness. The one-hour documentary focuses on hope and recovery as it looks beneath the tattered clothes, the dirt, the grime to reveal individuals who have an illness and who deserve respect, patience and understanding.

Premiering Friday, October 4, at 9pm on KQED Public Television 9 and airing on public television stations around the state (check local listings), Bay Window: Hope on the Street includes four heart-wrenching personal stories, of people who are in need of help and of people who are on their way to recovery. The stories also bring in family members as well as local outreach workers who are helping this underserved and often-overlooked segment of our population.

During this compelling hour, we meet

• Sandra, whose family in Mississippi has been trying to find her for more than 15 years. As the family dreams of the awaited reunion, Sandra has a setback in her recovery and now denies she left a family behind.

• Richard, also known as Circle Man because of his tendency to walk around in circles on the same block in San Francisco. Richard is an elderly veteran and former chemist who has the financial means and family support to leave the streets, but has been cycling in and out of homelessness, hospitals and jails for more than 20 years.

• Ray, who describes his as a story against all odds. He survived an abusive childhood and a homeless adolescence in which the only life he knew was gang life. In addition, he constantly struggles with a bipolar disorder. Ray overcame his illness with the support of his family and proper treatment and is now an outreach worker and speaker at mental health conferences across the country.

• J.J., who suffers from schizophrenia and was homeless for five years. His is a touching story of the importance of treatment and friendship. A man, who is now not only his boss but also his best friend, helped J.J. gain a new lease on life simply by taking a chance on him.

Hope on the Street offers proof that if society helps the mentally ill and homeless gain access to quality services, many of them will seize the opportunity to live productive and healthy lives.

Its great to look at all the homeless factoids, even throw in a few statistics, but does this show offer any solutions? Problem is, someone doing a misinformation campaign like the Newsom Corporation can use things like this to manipulate the public if it only covers the superficial aspects, or human interest stuff, as it appears to by looking at case studies.

Alioto was right to try to analyze and categorize the population to figure out what to really do. Talking about the particulars of someone who walks in circles will be dangerous in our current climate of Prop N and fascism if it doesn't address what *has* and *hasn't* worked, and why - backed up by sound research.

BAY WINDOW: HOPE ON THE STREET
Outreach Program and Partner Information
-----------------------------------------------------------

Background

The struggles of the homeless and the mentally ill -- and their families and the neighborhoods where they live -- are receiving renewed attention. Community programs in California are offering an array of services, from better housing to more jobs and job training to more support groups and socialization efforts. In addition, an increasing number of people who have a mental illness are ending their silence, shattering societal stereotypes.

In accordance with renewed efforts to implement reform in community mental health programs, KQED is one of several stations to receive a Sound Partners for Community Health grant to produce, in collaboration with community partners, locally conceived programming and outreach projects that address improving the quality of mental health care.

KQED is proud to be partnering with the Mental Health Education and Workforce Development Initiative (MHEWDI) at San Francisco State University's College of Extended Learning to improve the quality of care for the San Francisco Bay Area's mentally ill homeless population. By joining forces, KQED and MHEWDI will leverage each other's strengths and reach more people more effectively than either could do alone.

Stigma, shame and discrimination prevent an estimated 80 percent of mentally ill individuals from seeking treatment. Frontline mental health care workers -- especially primary care physicians and educators -- need to understand how these factors prevent individuals from seeking help. The goal of the KQED/MHEWDI partnership is to show mental health clients, mental health and other health care professionals, and the general public that there is hope for the mentally ill, even those living on the street, that many can lead stable and fulfilling lives when given access to quality care.

Outreach Program

In addition to producing and broadcasting Bay Window: Hope on the Street, KQED and MHEWDI are working together to create strategic outreach events with other community organizations. Community engagement activities will consist of four mental health awareness/education events that will use Bay Window: Hope on the Street as the springboard to exploring issues raised in the film. The theme of each event will be tied to recovery and will target different parts of the mental health community.

These four events will reach major mental health care stakeholders, including

* media makers, who have the power to affect broad perceptions about mental illness.
* educators, who often are the first to see signs of mental disabilities and who have a forum to teach about stigma.
* mental health care workers, social workers and primary care physicians, who guide those in need of assistance through the system and who must face head-on the quality of mental health care in the Bay Area.
* mental health clients and their families, who must navigate the mental health care system while confronting their own misconceptions about mental illness.
Outreach Events
October 10, 2002, 5:30 to 9 p.m. ­ Media and Mental Illness: Shattering the Stigma

Bay Area journalists and mental health community representatives will join together at this seminar to discuss the power of the media in shaping public perception of the mentally ill and how to improve media coverage. Otto Wahl, professor of psychology at George Mason University, will be the keynote speaker, along with a distinguished panel that includes: William Brand, Oakland Tribune; Rob Elder, San Jose Mercury News (ret.); Nguyen Qui Duc, KQED Public Radio's Pacific Time; and Michael Isip, producer, Bay Window: Hope on the Street. A clip from the documentary will also be shown.

Hosted by the U.C. Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Co-sponsors for the event include: Alameda County Council of Mental Health Agencies, KQED Public Broadcasting, Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services, Alameda County Mental Health Board, Peers Envisioning and Engaging in Recovery Services, Mental Health Association in California, CSU Hayward's Institute of Mental Health and Wellness Education, and SFSU's Mental Health Education and Workforce Development Initiative.

Contact: Mike Lippitt, Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services, lippitt [at] bhcs.mail.co.alameda.ca.us or (510) 567-8100
Location: North Gate Hall, U.C. Berkeley (corner of Euclid and Hearst streets), Berkeley, Calif.

March 1, 2003 ­ A Major Mental Health Symposium for Educators and Frontline Professionals

A one-day symposium will be hosted by San Francisco State University's College of Extended Learning's Mental Health Education and Workforce Development Initiative. Specifically designed for teachers (preschool to postgraduate) and frontline professionals, the seminar will address mental health and illness indicators, resources, new approaches and treatments, and the role of cultural and ethnic mental health belief systems. The emphasis of the event will be on hope, recovery, and the importance of early identification and intervention for long-term mental health and wellness. A clip from Bay Window: Hope on the Street will be shown in the morning to set the tone for the day. For more information, please go to http://www.cel.sfsu.edu/catpro/home.cfm?selection=mcce.

Contact: Dede Ranahan, Mental Health Education and Workforce Development Initiative, dranahan [at] sfsu.edu or (415) 405-7751
Location: South San Francisco Conference Center, 255 S. Airport Blvd., South San Francisco, Calif.

May 2003 ­ Training Event for Mental Health Professionals Working in Community Groups

This half-day training event is hosted by San Francisco Community Mental Health Services of the Department of Public Health, City and County of San Francisco and is designed to increase cultural awareness and sensitivity around the mentally ill homeless as well as to identify ways to improve care. Participants will include mental health professionals such as social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, mental health case managers, peer counselors and health workers working in community mental health programs. The specific date for this event is to be determined.

Contact: Juliet Valerio, 415-558-5915
Location: TBD

June 2003 ­ Seminar for Mental Health Consumers and Their Families

A half-day event hosted by the Mental Health Association of San Francisco will explore the power of stigma as an obstacle to recovery and treatment. The seminar will focus on helping families to overcome their misconceptions of mental illness in order to help them reach out to their loved ones who have mental disabilities, giving everyone involved hope for recovery. Participants will include mental health clients, mental health professionals and family members. The specific date for this event is to be determined.

Contact: Belinda Lyons, belinda [at] mha-sfbay.org or (415) 241-2929
Location: TBD

Our Partners

The Mental Health Education and Workforce Development Initiative (MHEWDI) at San Francisco State University's College of Extended Learning strives to bring the education system and the mental health system together as essential partners in serving the mental health needs of the community. The initiative is focusing on four strategic areas: mental health/human services workforce education and training that includes the education of mental health clients/consumers; mental health education for mainstream teachers/faculty (preschool to postgraduate); an enhanced, comprehensive system of accessible and effective supports for college students who have mental disabilities; and mental health education for the culturally diverse communities of the greater Bay Area. In addition, MHEWDI's advisory committee of approximately 60 representatives from a wide range of mental health organizations has been pivotal in the development of the content for the Bay Window: Hope on the Street documentary and outreach materials and events. For more information, please go to http://www.cel.sfsu.edu/catpro/home.cfm?selection=mcce.

Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services is working to provide a comprehensive network of integrated programs and services for all people who have serious psychiatric disabilities, regardless of age, ethnicity, language or geographic location, in order to minimize their number of hospitalizations, stabilize and manage their psychiatric symptoms, and help them achieve the highest possible level of successful functioning in their community of choice. It also provides mental health crisis and recovery services following major disasters and is working to improve its substance abuse services -- prevention, treatment, rehabilitation -- in order to reduce the illness, death, disability and cost to society that results from substance abuse. For more information, please go to http://www.co.alameda.ca.us/health/behavior/behav.shtml.

The San Francisco Department of Public Health's Community Mental Health Services-San Francisco Mental Health Plan offers a full range of specialty mental health services provided by a culturally diverse network of community mental health programs, clinics, and private psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists. For more information, please go to http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/PHP/MHP.htm.

The Mental Health Association of San Francisco is dedicated to providing dynamic leadership to the entire community, in all its rich diversity, by building resources for, fostering the strengths of, meeting the needs of and improving the lives of all who are challenged by mental illness. , through education, advocacy and service. For more information, please go to http://www.mha-sfbay.org/.

Grant Information

Sound Partners for Community Health seeks to increase public awareness of specific health issues and facilitate citizens' involvement in making decisions affecting health care by fostering partnerships between public broadcasters, community organizations and additional media entities. By utilizing a variety of programming and community engagement techniques, the alliances supported by Sound Partners help equip individuals to participate in community problem-solving around local health issues. Sound Partners is a program of the Benton Foundation and is funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. For more information, please go to http://www.soundpartners.org/.

News Release: Sound Partners Awards $1.7 Million to Public Broadcasters - http://www.soundpartners.org/information1976/information_show.htm?doc_id=119983

How will taking money that used to go directly into the hands of the poor away and giving it to a new bureaucracy help anyone? Sure, a bunch of this money goes to drug addicts who use it for drugs, it also goes to the working poor, who use it for food and shelter. It is more important to allow a working person money for food, shelter and medical attention than it is to take money away from druggies.

About a month ago KQED radio had a pretty good call-in show with mental health experts and 100% of them were opposed to prop N. There was also widespread agreement that by demonizing the homeless Newsom was contributing to a major factor that contributes to mental health problems. Im not sure if the show posted above is similar,but people should not assume that just because KQED is "mainstream" a show they have one the homeless will favor Newsom. Since they tend to talk to doctors, social workers etc... I'm guessing it takes a strong stance against prop N.

San Francisco has a dismal record in the provision of vital health services such as substance abuse and mental health treatment. SAMH unites mental health consumers, individuals both recovering from and currently abusing substances, and front line social services staff, to build a political voice for responsive treatment services that are available to all people who need it - when they seek it.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Work Group provides a safe and supportive space for front line providers, people with psychiatric illnesses, and addictive disorders to meet, develop ideas, and organize to gain access to treatment. In order to meet people in the diverse and challenging situations in which they find themselves, SAMH engages in extensive dialogues to the streets, substance abuse and mental health treatment facilities, and welfare offices to inform them of their rights, to solicit their opinions on what needs to be changed in the system and open up opportunities to have their voices heard. Once communication and trust have been established, individuals can become involved in SAMH activity in a number of ways. Some of these activities involved writing articles for the Street Sheet, the Coalition on Homelessness's monthly newspaper with a circulation of over 34,000, engaging in peer outreach and support, creating policy in different SAMH work groups, attending meetings with public and social service officials to address deficiencies and discrepancies in service, and engaging in advocacy work. Through this process, SAMH has ensured that our activity is guided, bottom to top, by people personally impacted by mental health and substance abuse problems. Like all Coalition projects, the information gathered from our constituency guides our agenda.

When we talk to users, they complain of long waits for treatment that greatly diminish their ability to address their disorder; and they complain that the treatment programs that do exist have not been responsive to their needs. We have a substance abuse treatment system in San Francisco that does not respond effectively to homeless people's needs, those with co-occuring mental health issues, those who want to address their disorder but are not at the point where they can practice abstinence, those with children they want to retain or alternative families that they want to keep intact. There are substantial cultural differences between addicts, and the system needs to remain diverse to accomodate those various needs.

SAMH succeeded in garnering a committment from the City and County of San Francisco for a policy of substance abuse treatment on demand, and we work to rebuild an accountable substance abuse treatment system while advocating that this policy becomes a reality. This was kicked organizing to get a resolution passed unaminously by the Board of Supervisors, Health Commission and the Mayor, urging the City to create treatment on demand. The strategy that the Work Group used to ensure that poor and low-income drug users/addicts was to propose a bottom-up planning process to the Department of Public Health. The point of this group was to redesign the treatment system, so that unserved populations get their needs met in an appropriate way. They accepted the plan and the Planning Council is now in Year Five of operation. The overall idea was to shake up the Old Boys' Club, where the same big agencies are funded year after year with no questions asked and no accountability. Now a community body makes decisions on where funding is allocated, through data and community input. Collectively, our efforts in combination with the Planning Council have resulted in $14,000,000 in new treatment expenditures and the design of numerous innovative new treatment programs. The Council also developed, as pushed by SAMH, a uniform grievance procedure that will ensure treatment participants have uniform rights and fair treatment.

We have spearheaded similar issues around mental health treatment to expand and revitalize the mental health treatment system after decades of cuts have dismantled the system. Mental health services have long been the neglected stepchild of the health care system. Mental health consumers are stigmatized, shut away, and made to feel like their health issue is their fault. There have been tremendous medical advances that show psychiatric illnesses as diseases of the brain, and new psychotropic drugs allow individuals with these conditions to, in many cases, lead normal lives without negative side effects. In fact, psychiatric illness is the only epidemic which has not been recognized by the broader medical community.

The mental health system in San Francisco has for many years only provided treatment to those who have already reached a state of crisis and can show that they are severely and persistently mentally ill. This has meant that San Francisco incurs a great deal of expense at the emergency services level through involuntary detentions - giving San Francisco the highest 5150 (involuntary detention) rate in the state.

SAMH was successful in getting the Health Commission to pass a resolution supporting a 'single standard of care' whereby individuals without insurance and those with would have equal access to treatment and to later garner funding from the City to pay for this.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Work Group (SAMH) has developed a strategic plan to acheive lasting change in public mental health policy. SAMH believes the poor and homeless people with mental health treatment needs have not been included in the process of developing responses to these needs, a marginalization which has resulted in partial and ineffective policy decisions.

In order to ensure that mental health consumers are driving the process for effective health care, SAMH conducted a survey and wrote a report entitled 'Locked Out: The Voices of Homeless People with Mental Illnesses' This report outlined how homeless people with psychiatric disabilities across the City are being limited in their ability to access treatment at the present time, what kind of treatment they would like to gain access to, and what their suggestions are for creating those changes. Both the questions and the outreach activity were peer-based.

The Work Group has also done quite a bit of work around homeless deaths, including the creation of the Homeless Death Prevention Project. The Homeless Death Prevention Project has an outreach program that works with individuals at risk of dying on the streets, a research component that tracks each death as it occurs, and an advocacy piece that works to change those conditions that allow preventable deaths to occur.

Mental health and substance abuse treatment is not merely something that thousands of San Franciscans want, it is something that they need. For many, it is a life or death issue...

The Case for After Hours Crisis Services
---------------------------------------------------------
* There is currently nowhere for people to go who have a psychiatric crisis after hours - their only option is to call the police.

* Police bring individuals either to the locked facility at S.F. General Hospital (Psychiatric Emergency Services), or to jail. Thousands of individuals in crisis are further traumatized by this experience, or in the most severe cases, are killed by the police (such as in the recent example of Idriss Stelley).

* San Francisco has the highest 5150 rate in the state. 5150's are incidents of people being involuntarily detained for 72 hours for psychiatric evaluation. (CMHS, 1999)

* The second leading cause of violent death for people with psychiatric illnesses is police killings. (CA Alliance of the Mentally Ill)

* One in four calls to the San Francisco Police Dept. are responses to individuals in psychiatric crisis. (Dr. Forester, SFPD, 2000)

* Approximately 3000 people go to SFGH Psychiatric Emergency Services for severe psychiatric crisis every year who have not had previous contact with the mental health system. (Phyllis Harding, DPH)

* Over 30% of those seeking mental health treatment last year never received it. (COH, June 1999)

* Due to the involuntary nature of 5150's, the process is intrusive and counter-therapeutic, and can cause someone who needs mental health services to lose faith in the system. At the same time, it is a response that occurs only after an emergency takes place. This initiative will ensure that for many individuals, their first experience with the mental health system will not be met with an armed officer and 5 point restraints.

* Approximately 30 - 40% of homeless San Franciscans are mentally ill; this could be as many as 5600 homeless people with mental illnesses. (S.F. McKinney application, fall 2000) The S.F. mental health system is currently serving only 2750 homeless individuals. This critical service will be designed to be homeless-friendly and will meet homeless people's needs.

What a poorly written article, filled with typos and bad grammar. Worse, what a sad thing to erode the meaning of "Nazi" by assigning it to local politicians. The Nazis exterminated Jews. Didn't you know? How dare you lessen the meaning of this term by using it for such purposes.

They exterminated the homeless and disabled, too.

and when the city starts systematically rounding up the homeless and disabled and placing them on trains to be sent to concentration camps to be gased and shoved into the ovens then i'll call them nazis. anything short of that i wont

Did all these people move to SF because they were nuts or did they become nuts by living there?

Why is it that people like to pick on words more than policy? Newsom is trying to gain power through policies that will hurt the poorest of the poor. The economy is doing badly, housing is still expensive and this creep is trying to take AWAY money from the homeless.

The word Nazi is overused, fascist would be better (Newsom does remind me a little of the current well dressed neofacists in Italy), but you didnt hear people boycotting Seinfeld because he called someone a soupNazi. Its clearly just an attempt to sidestep the issue. Taking money from rich people probably wont result in more detahs among rich people (but Republicans love comparing everyone to Nazis anyway) but taking money from the homeless seems like it will. ANYONE willing to sacrifice lives for political gain deserves to be attacked as often and as strongly as possible.

If the only things supporters of N can come up with is semantics, then obviously they know they are guilty and covered in the blood of the least fortunate in society

lets just throw more money at it. that'll work.

I've got a better idea. Care not Cash for Corporations. Thats right. No more handouts. Lets see the "laissez faire" sector manage without massive injections of grants and loans from the public taxpayer. In fact let's cut down the amount of private sector giveaways to exactly the same amount as whatever is spent on GA. Heh. Lets see the fucking capitalists survive then.

corporations are not my concern. the homeless are. if we can just throw more money at the problem i can sleep better at night. because you know this isnt about solving the problem at all. this is about feeling like your actually doing something to solve the problem. and if the problem doesnt get solved we can just throw more money at it until we all feel better about ourselves.

Its depends by what you mean by help. Why is it that religious groups, community groups and any other groups that works with homeless people oppose this proposition? Why is it that all the pro N people Ive talked to dont have the interests of the homeless in mind (its always them complaining about having to look at poor people)

We cant "JUST THROW MONEY" is the common Republican line about everything. If teachers are underpaid and many cant afford to live near where they teach, the often heard refrain from conservatives is that "throwing money" wont help. But then something like 9/11 comes around and conservatives cant stop throwing money at everything (from new nuclear bombs to wars in distant countries) As we saw in the Reagan era, conservatives are great at running up debt. They cant stop stuffing money into the mouths of their corporate backers, but if a homeless person needs a meal or place to sleep thats somehow greedy.

Some issues can be solved with money. If you give enough money to someone who is poor they stop being poor. It would be nice if the US or even a relatively liberal city in the US would be humane enough to take care of its poorest citizens (at least as well as many European countries do).

Maintaining current programs that dont do enough is wrong.

Cutting off money and not providing any real increase in care is just plain mean spirited.

Cutting off money when the economy is bad and housing is expensive is even worse.

Using the demonization of the homeless for political gain is downright EVIL.

so lets all throw more money so we can all feel better about ourselves. i'm with you 110%. throw money.

Its better to give people money rather than to throw it at them. Its good to stop and talk and be friendly too.

When an army of volunteers set out gathering signatures to put Care Not Cash on the ballot, organizers at the Coalition on Homelessness and its sister group, People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), trailed them, menacing folks who were interested in signing the petitions.

When Care Not Cash qualified for the ballot with more than 23,000 signatures, Homeless Inc., which stand to lose a big chunk of change of the stream of dollars if Care Not Cash passes in November, moved on to intimidating the people who supported the initiative, showing up at fund-raisers to get in the face of the people who turned out to help make sure Care Not Cash, Proposition N on the ballot, wins big.

Now it's more of the same -- Friday evening a gang of maybe 30 or so POWER thugs turned up at Harrington's Bar & Grill on Front Street, just as happy hour was beginning, trying their best to shut down the place simply because proprietor Kathleen Harrington has the temerity to say Yes on Prop. N.

"As homeless GA (general assistance) recipients, we are good for small businesses," one of the POWER brownshirts said in a written statement obtained by The Examiner.

Sure, a homeless junkie dying in a doorway -- one of the hundred or so who OD on the streets of San Francisco each year -- is great for small business.

To hear the POWER crowd tell it, the homeless have become The City's No. 1 tourist attraction.

The fact is, homelessness costs small businesses big money. Each tourist who goes to New York instead of San Francisco represents money that doesn't go to San Francisco small businesses.

Thankfully, Harrington's draws some of the hardiest patrons around. The POWER protest failed to intimidate them.

Wanna really know why people want Prop N to fail? Just follow the money.

Well you seem to be doing a good job making poor people out to look dangerous and scary. You also have put enough energy into demonizing the current antiN groups that you should be happy to hear that many other groups are getting ready to take strong stances on N.

When Leno speaks at the IAC march Saturday it will be members of the Green party and various socialist groups that chant him off stage for his support for N.

The reason N is wrong should be obvious to you. You have a comfortable life and your complaining about having to looks at the homeless. Think about it. You really dont have too many problems accept for a disgust at the appearance of the less fortunate. It sounds pretty morally bankrupt doesnt it. Whats next, a proposition to throw orphans out onto the street? A proposition to make sidewalks harder to use for the disabled because you dont want to see them around either?

Have You No Sense of Decency?

People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) is a multi-racial organization, made up of and run by low-wage and no-wage workers. POWER seeks to create living wage jobs, raise the wages and improve the working conditions at existing jobs and increase the overall strength of low-income and unemployed people.

The heart of POWER's work is organizing and developing new low-wage and no-wage worker-leaders-Workfare Workers, Prison Laborers, Day Laborers, domestic Workers, Contingent Workers and Unemployed Workers-shattering the exclusionary notions of who is and who is not a worker. To support this organizing, we also do benefits advocacy, community education and develop partnerships with other sectors of the community.

POWER is currently organizing Workfare Workers to win permanent jobs that pay a living wage. In exchange for their welfare benefits, Workfare Workers are required to perform jobs once performed by union employees for a fraction of the wages, no benefits, no protections and no opportunity for permanent employment.

Through years of developing worker-leaders and running strategic campaigns, POWER has grown significantly to become a force in the Bay Area and within the larger Movement for peace and justice. Most importantly, POWER has developed the strategic and technical skills of no- and low-wage workers that are necessary to take leadership of the organization as well as the broader Movement. Now, no- and low-wage workers themselves are speaking on their on behalf. But POWER’s success has been felt in the community too. In less than four years, POWER won numerous victories, including:

• Winning free public transportation for all of San Francisco’s Workfare Workers.

• Halted a plan to senselessly rotate Workfare Workers between different City agencies every three months.

• Winning of the recognition of Workfare Workers as legal workers from the California Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration.

• Gaining of access to on-site restrooms and lunchrooms which were previously off-limits to Workfare Workers.

• Stopping the attempted privatization of the distribution of welfare benefits.

• Creation of a city-funded Workfare Ombudsperson staff position, which is mandated to investigate and mediate worksite conflicts.

• Forced San Francisco to create 850 jobs for San Francisco’s Workfare Workers as part of the Living Wage Agreement. This victory also guaranteed that the number of hours to be performed by those people still doing workfare will be reduced to eight (8) hours per week, down from thirteen (13).

"Wanna really know why people want Prop N to fail? Just follow the money."

Yep, follow the money back to local Republicans, etc.. Im guessing that many individuals at the ProN rally were worth more than all the money the cities homeless programs use in a year. Cant Newsom ask his friend Getty to just house all of the homeless in SF. He has the money to pay rent for all of them for quite some time without even touching his bank account to any real extent.

AND, homeless services dont make ANY money off GA; its money given directly to homeless people. The proN crowd falsely cliams that its just a reallocation to services. If that were true wouldnt one expect homeless service groups to support N?

You are grasping at straws, which would be merely amusing if it werent for the likelihood that N will pass. Why do you want it to pass? Do you work in a part of the city where there are alot of homeless people? I doubt it. The real reason behind the very pro N crowd is ALOT scarier than the reasons most peopel may vote for it.

The Examiner Staff

Dr. Pablo Stewart is Chief of Psychiatric Services at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and a consultant at the San Francisco Drug Court. He has 20 years of experience working with drug addicts, mentally ill patients, veterans and prisoners. He believes giving the homeless cash will go directly to their addictions.

Nina Wu: What percentage of the homeless do you think is addicted to substances?

Pablo Stewart: Practically 100 percent. That's my experience. When I say 100 percent, that means the overwhelming majority of the homeless I've ever worked with have had substance abuse problems. Now, I need to qualify that with the best study I've seen on substance abuse and the homeless, 2/3 to 3/4 of the homeless have had at some time in their life substance abuse problems. And at any given time, more than half of the homeless have an active substance abuse problem.

Q: Which comes first, homelessness or addictions?

A: Substance abuse. Homelessness is caused by substance abuse.

Q: Some people say the homeless turn to substances to survive on the streets.

A: That is a very common story. When you look at it more closely, you find that homelessness is secondary to substance abuse. I think it's really important to remember the proper sequence. Untreated mental illness leads to homelessness and substance abuse also leads to mental illness, so you've got all these contributing factors. This is where these so-called homeless advocates got it all wrong. "Well, you'd drink too if you were on the streets."

Well, let's step back for a second. Let's see where the drinking started and how it's led to the inability to have a job, to mental health problems and medical problems. The natural consequence of untreated substance abuse is homelessness.

Q: But certainly, there are root causes that lead people to substance abuse.

A: Substance abuse is a disease. It's a disease that can very adequately be treated and if you don't treat it, then you'll end up with the natural consequences.

Q: Do you support what Supervisor Gavin Newsom now calls the Care Not Cash Initiative? Cutting welfare cash checks?

A: Absolutely. The first thing it'll do is decrease the amount of overdose deaths and heroin deaths.

Q: And by that, you're saying you believe that the homeless are funding their addictions with the GA check?

A: Oh, absolutely. There's no question about it. This is not even a question. If anyone says it is, they have no idea what they're talking about. They have no experience and they're also not aware of scientific literature. You know what they call GA check day? They call it Mother's Day. They're getting free money to buy drugs.

Q: But certainly, there are some legitimate homeless out there and families that are just trying to make ends meet?

A: Now, in any situation, there are always going to be exceptions. Anyone who says that GA money doesn't go straight into buying drugs and then results in medical-psychiatric-death complications is an idiot.

Q: What does San Francisco need to do?

A: See, everyone in San Francisco prides himself in this so-called harm reduction. Well, the best harm reduction we can do is keeping cash out of these people's hands. So we shouldn't give them GA. We should give them vouchers for treatment, housing, medical care and all that stuff. And we shouldn't give money to panhandlers. That's the next big push I would love to see, a public educational campaign to say, don't give money to panhandlers. The money goes right to drugs.

Q: Are there programs that work?

A: There are so many examples of programs that work, but they require a different sort of political will than what people are willing to do here. And there are programs in San Francisco that work and there are a variety of solutions out there. We have been unable to implement them here on a systemwide basis. The one I'm familiar with that's most successful is the Veterans Administration. They have a comprehensive treatment plan that addresses people's issues, substance abuse, mental health, financial, vocational.

Q: Do you believe in tough love?

A: See, I don't know what tough love means. Gavin Newsom's program is not tough love. Newsom's program says The City is no longer going to facilitate people's substance abuse by giving them money. That's not tough love. That's just sound human-services policy, because giving money to people who have drug problems leads to death. So he's tired of people dying and so am I. If you care about the poor, you don't want them to die, so why would you continue to facilitate their death? This is the most common-sensical thing that we've done in this town in ages. It's a no-brainer.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner_qa/default.jsp?story=n.Stewart.0626w

-----------------

Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc
San Francisco, California

Founded in 1967 by Dr. David E. Smith, the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. We believe it should be free at the point of delivery, and it should be comprehensive, nonjudgmental, demystified, and humane. http://www.hafci.org/

Services for the Homeless
One in five clients of Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic sleeps on the street, in a car, or in a park every night. http://www.hafci.org/medical/hch_prog.htm

That's not the point. The point is they get a major hard-on by the amount of money they CONTROL. When they CONTROL the money, they get to shoot their wad and drain their nuts in any direction they want. They lose CONTROL and their collective dicks go limp. They get off on the CONTROL they have over people lives.

"Com'n little homeless man, you want to eat tonight? How about you eat this cat shit first. Com'n, eat the cat shit and I'll give you a biscuit and some dirty water."

These homeless services people are sick and YOU support scum like that.

hmm

Whats their interest in this. Its seems like they dug up one doctor but when there was a debate on NPR not a single doctor they could get supported it....

If someone is addicted to something a lack of money wont stop the addiction; all that will reuslt is an increase in crime which will cause another yuppie backlash...

Who is Dr. Pablo?

Dr. Pablo Stewart is Chief of Psychiatric Services at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic in San Francisco. He has over 17 years experience working with substance abusers, including Veterans, the homeless, seriously mentally ill patients and prisoners. He helped develop a treatment model has been replicated throughout the United States, Europe and Asia.

Dr. Pablo is a family man whose real passion is coaching his daughter's soccer, volleyball, baseball and basketball teams. He lives in the Haight Ashbury District in San Francisco. He has a deep connection with Hawaii since his maternal grandfather, Torakashi Saiki, immigrated to Oahu in the 1890's to work as a railroad engineer on the sugarcane trains on Oahu.

More About Dr. Pablo

I have worked with both the mentally ill and substance abusers since 1982. I am currently the Chief of Psychiatric services at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic. We have developed a model of treating substance abusers that has been replicated throughout the world. I am also on the faculty at the University of California, San Francisco, UCSF, School of Medicine. In this capacity, I am involved in teaching a variety of psychiatric and substance abuse topics. The remainder of my professional activities includes consultation to government and treatment agencies regarding the provision of care to both substance abusers and the mentally ill. Current clients include the California Department of Corrections, the State of Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, San Francisco Drug Court as well as a variety of agencies and county governments in California, Arizona and Hawai'i. Please contact me through this web site to see if I can be of assistance to your agency.

Ask Dr. Pablo Stewart:
Type your question for Dr Pablo at this page - http://www.mauicares.com/mcpablo2.htm

WE haven't decided if we are supporting it yet...

Contrary to Newsomes' claims - The Haight Ashbury Free Clinic is Not Supporting Prop N; Care Not Cash
Pt 6 in the ongoing PNN series; Pretty Boy Newsome versus the poor folk of San Francisco

Carol Harvey
Tuesday, August 20, 2002;

"The baby grunted again, ...`If you're going to turn into a pig, my dear,' said Alice, seriously, `I'll have nothing more to do with you...

`Did you say pig, or fig?' said the Cheshire Cat.

`I said pig,' replied Alice; `and I wish you wouldn't keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly: you make one quite giddy.'

One day, The Haight-Ashbury Clinic's Dove logo and a link to its site appeared on Care Not Cash.org. Like the Cheshire cat, at the Clinic's request, the next day it was gone.

In his promotional Chronicle op ed in the July 16th Chronicle for his Care Not Cash initiative, Newsom wrote: "...I have joined with medical professionals and organizations such as Dr. Pablo Stewart of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic...in support of comprehensive reform of how we provide care to homeless San Franciscans?"

In his July 16 Political Notebook, "Winning Care Not Cash," Samsun Wong echoed the statement, "Newsom has constantly emphasized the medical community's support (repeatedly citing)..."Dr. Pablo Stewart of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics."

In his Chronicle article, on July 2, "Homeless measure makes sense/Care Not Cash plan should make ballot," Ken Garcia quoted Dr. Frank Staggers, Jr., medical director of the Free Clinic's substance abuse programs. "We're seeing Third World-type poverty and malnutrition, and anything that gets these people more food I would support."

Garcia incorrectly connected Staggers to proponents of Care Not Cash following this quote: "That will explain why...compassionate people such as Dr. Pablo Stewart of The Haight Ashbury Free Clinic...are solidly behind Newsom's plan."

In an interview, Dr. Staggers denied the association telling me, "I am an apolitical advocate for homeless people without polemic or agenda."

Do such disinformative maneuvers undermine Care Not Cash's credibility? Do Newsom's suddenly vanishing claims of support from the medical community amount to --- in terms of Alice in Wonderland --- a baby, a pig, or a fig (ment) of his political imagination?

Ken Garcia's article suggests that both Dr. Staggers and the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic medical staff en bloc, support Newsom's CNC plan. Yet, on July 17, 2002, Majett Whiteside, administrator at the Free Clinic told me, "CEO, Dr. Darryl Inaba states that we have not accepted or adopted an official policy on the Care Not Cash initiative."

On July 18, 2002, Dr. Inaba, CEO of the Haight Ashbury Clinic, answered my phone query; "Does The Haight Ashbury Clinic or any of its doctors support Care Not Cash?"

"We have written clarifying letters to the editors," he replied. "To date, none have been published. This has me concerned about the objectivity of the papers. "My biggest concerns are: "How does he (Newsom) assume that the 2,500 people on GA are all addicts? And where are they are going to go right away? I don't know of 2,500 more slots for treatment or beds in the city."

"Has the Clinic ever come out in support of Care Not Cash?" I asked Dr. Inaba.

"No," he answered. "We haven't decided whether we are for or against it. To be honest, we've never taken any vote. Several doctors, Dr. Joseph Elson, Medical Clinic Director, and a psychiatrist here, Dr. Adam Nelson, are strongly opposed.

"He (Ken Garcia) is quoting a doctor, and saying it represents the Haight Ashbury Clinic. The doctor is not authorized to speak on behalf of the Haight-Ashbury Clinic."

"Dr. Stewart supports that initiative," Dr. Inaba continued. "He has worked here many years as a real advocate for homeless rights and care. He is frustrated over the lack of resources for (them). He has probably been misled that this (Care Not Cash) is going to give them more care. I have heard him tell people in the newspaper that this is his own personal opinion, but Gavin and everybody else keeps quoting him as the Haight Ashbury Clinic. "

To counter this mistaken impression that the Haight Ashbury Clinic is supporting Newsom's proposal, Dr. Inaba sent out a press release on July 18 with the headline: "Haight Ashbury Free Clinics Take No Official Position on Care Not Cash November Ballot Measure."

The statement is worth quoting at some length: "Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. (HAFCI) today announced that it has taken no position on the Care Not Cash November ballot measure that changes the way the City approaches the dispensing of homeless services. It has come to our attention that several of our employees have taken public stands on this ballot initiative, either pro or con, and we want the public to know that Haight Ashbury Free Clinics as an organization has not taken an official position on the measure," said Darryl Inaba, HAFCI's Cheif Executive Officer.

"While we support an individual's right to speak out on matters of public policy, any statements attributed to HAFCI employees in regard to the Care Not Cash initiative are their own personal opinions, and not the official policy of our organization," added Dr. Inaba.

"HAFCI has been providing primary health care to the uninsured and medically underserved for 35 years...at no cost to the Individual," said Inaba,"and we will continue to do so no matter how public policy regarding the homeless is changed in our City."

In an interview, I asked Dr. Staggers, "How do you answer the claim of Newsom's Care Not Cash folks that the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic is solidly behind their new proposal? Ken Garcia has written this article with your quotes suggesting you support Newsom's Care Not Cash initiative."

Dr. Staggers replied, "When he called, I told Ken Garcia, 'It is shameful that I am seeing Third World poverty.' The true context of my statement was the atrocious state of homeless care I see in San Francisco, not that I am supporting this or that. People have taken that Third World poverty quote and said, 'He must be behind Gavin Newsom.' I don't have a position (on Care Not Cash) that I am willing to state publicly. I have no comment. My position is as an advocate for the homeless. They are underserved, and they die quicker."

Garcia's pairing and placement of Dr. Staggers' quote immediately before Dr. Pablo Stewart's, a single Haight Ashbury Clinic M.D. who supports vouchers, was particularly innovative in its attempt to suggest a political position by association.

It shifted the focus toward Care Not Cash and away from Dr. Stagger's life's work in promoting adequate health and social services for homeless people.

Dr. Staggers said, "I'm an addiction, hypertension, and published stress specialist. I've been in this business since the '80s and with the Clinic since 1990. Before I came here, I was with clinics in Alameda County, and I direct a Hayward methadone program. I have designed homeless shelters and programs. I trained at Highland Hospital in Oakland. I was surprised because I thought it (allowing himself to be interviewed) was a way to get my feeling out there. He (Garcia) didn't do it that way. He said my words exactly. But, it's just the way they're situated. I can't speak for Pablo Stewart.

"It (Garcia's quote) makes it look like, 'Dr. Staggers is saying he supports anything, so he must support this,' and I was say, 'No!' My emphasis has always been making sure the homeless have decent adequate services. Homeless people don't have enough psychiatric, medical, or social services. (What services there are) need more funding, just basic things like bathrooms, showers."

In our lengthy interview, Dr. Staggers drew upon his many years' experience working as a medical provider to homeless people. He emphasized four main points about the illness, suffering and premature deaths caused by homelessness:

1. "We all know that homelessness wreaks havoc on physical and mental health," Staggers said. "Homeless people live a shorter amount of time. One study by Drs. Goldman and Sacks around 1990 first showed that homelessness itself is a risk factor for premature death. Subsequent studies indicate if you are homeless you have more chance of getting killed, you are at risk for AIDS, or TB, for mental breakdown. Homeless people die prematurely. I always emphasize it is hard in San Francisco to find services for my homeless patients. We don't have enough services, and the services we have are at risk of getting budget cuts."

2. "It depends on the city, but a huge number of homeless people have addiction problems,"Staggers continued."Homelessness and addiction is a significant thing. Statistical studies (reveal that) the number of homeless people who have mental illness, mental illness and alcoholism, and mental illness, alcohol and drug addiction is huge. The overlap between addiction types and homelessness is also huge."

3. "Dr. Staggers," I asked, "Newsome and his Care Not Cash camp are tarring the homeless with the addiction brush. People say that drug addiction leads to homelessness. People say homelessness creates drug addiction. What is the truth?"

Dr. Staggers' answered, "The truth is it can go either way. It's a two-way street. I can't count the number of folks who had decent jobs, were good all-American citizens, then got on drugs, and now they're homeless. We see that all the time.

"However, I have also seen the opposite. For example, most of the women patients I've got are routinely and repeatedly raped within a few days of being homeless because it is very hard to protect yourself. Many of my women have all these survival skills. They reverse their sleep patterns because if they stop moving at night, they'll get raped. They come in to me and they say, 'Doc. I can't sleep during the night. I have to keep moving at night in order to stay alive.' I support (the general public) being educated on how stressful homelessness is because that is not understood. You can tell people I have women who are repeatedly raped. Then they have post traumatic stress disorder. This can lead to the use of substances in order to anesthetize the stress. People don't know that.

"A lot of people are one paycheck away from being homeless. I see patients who are normal folks who become homeless. They get raped, mugged, beat up. They totally become stressed out, and then they start taking drugs as the result of the stress of the homelessness. I see it all the time --- homelessness leads to stress, which leads to drug abuse. I'm glad you asked that question because it is such an important issue that people don't understand. If you are going to write about it, I would be very grateful if you could get this information out there. Homelessness is a major physical and psychiatric stressor which can lead to substance abuse and addiction."

4. "Some take the position that there are plenty of shelter beds," Staggers concluded. "You can't just count beds. You must ask, 'What is the quality and safety of the shelter?' A lot of homeless tell me, and I have visited those shelters myself and observed, that they are horrible and unsafe, especially for women. You are actually safer staying ouside then sleeping in shelters."

In the end, Staggers waxed optimistic. "Most of the feedback I've got is positive. I have gotten a lot of calls from folks who took my statement in the Chronicle the right way. They said they were glad to see somebody talking about not enough services for the homeless. Everybody said that the statement that we have horrible poverty --- it's Third World quality --- they said, 'People need to know that'."

And, in fact, disinformation like Newsom's, picked up and repeated by Garcia and Wong, will only undermine Care Not Cash's credibility. It may be that public refusal of the medical community to support both such disinformative tactics and Care Not Cash will reveal this proposal as nothing more than a fraudulent visit to Wonderland and the birth of a baby, a pig, or a fig(ment) of Newsom's political imagination.

from a number of comments up this thread . ..

I'm not criticizing KQED's devotion to the community or to causes, but I'm concerned about a show like this airing NOW just before elections with a huge MISINFORMATION campaign underway. As you can see, a number of people on here have already fallen for the lies. We don't need to work more people up to feel sorry for homeless and not bother to look into the lies - which could easily happen with a TV viewing audience.

Summary of Recommendations:

* Ensure access to mainstream addiction and mental health services for people experiencing homelessness, including treatment upon request ("on demand") for addiction disorders.
* Strengthen existing programs. Increase appropriations in FY 2003 by
- at least $2.5 billion for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program;
- at least $500 million for the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant program;
- at least $100 million for the Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals program; and
- at least $75 million for the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness program.
* End the criminalization of homelessness. Establish policies and programs to identify people with addiction disorders and/or mental illness who are charged with or convicted of minor offenses, and divert them from the criminal justice system to housing, health care, and supportive services.
* Establish policies and programs that incorporate a recovery model of behavioral health care, including relapse tolerance and prevention strategies.
* Require health plans to cover behavioral health services in parity with coverage for other health services.

Homelessness presents barriers to mental health and/or addiction services. People experiencing homelessness are impoverished, uninsured or underinsured, and alone. People with an addiction and/or mental illness encounter greater barriers to employment and housing and tend to have complicated health problems. As many as half of the adults experiencing homelessness have histories of alcohol abuse or dependence. Approximately one-third of homeless adults have a history of mental illness, most of whom have co-occurring addiction disorders. Nearly two-thirds of surveyed homeless people report having an alcohol or drug problem within the past year.

Lack of documentation, lack of transportation, and difficulty adhering to treatment regimens prevent many homeless individuals from benefiting from behavioral health care. Without housing, people experiencing homelessness who have achieved recovery from addiction or who are managing a mental illness must return to the same high-risk environment following incarceration or hospital discharge. The realities of homelessness present complex challenges to service systems that are sorely under funded and ill equipped to address the needs of those who suffer from mental illness, with or without co-occurring addiction disorders.

The consequences of failure to provide treatment, ongoing services and supportive housing for people with addiction and/or mental illness include poor physical health, social dysfunction, inappropriate incarceration, high drug-related crime rates, prolonged homelessness, and early death.

Recommendations:

1. Ensure Access to and Accountability of Mainstream Addiction and Mental Health Services. Many mainstream addiction and mental health service providers are not equipped at this time to accommodate the complexities presented by homelessness, including a full range of health, housing and social services. As a result, many mainstream providers provide insufficient or ineffective care to persons experiencing homelessness. Treatment upon request ("on demand") is critical for homeless persons with addiction disorders.

The federal government has supported a "mainstream" safety net system, in lieu of universal health care, for people without health insurance coverage, including those who are experiencing, at-risk of, or in transition from homelessness. The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant program, the Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) Block grant program, and various state programs form the core of a safety net system of behavioral health services.

Current funding for both the SAPT and CMHS programs is not adequate to enable states to provide adequate addiction and/or mental health services to people without health insurance. We urge Congress and the Administration to appropriate for FY 2003 at least $2.5 billion for SAPT and at least $500 million for CMHS. Additionally, we call upon Congress, the Administration, states, and providers to take statutory, regulatory, and programmatic actions to ensure access to addiction services within mainstream systems.

2. Strengthen targeted homeless assistance programs. Recognizing that homelessness restricts access to mainstream addiction and mental health services, Congress has established the GBHI program to provide addiction and mental health services and the PATH program to provide mental health services to people experiencing homelessness. Nevertheless, resource constraints preclude many providers from offering long-term, residentially based aftercare and housing services that are essential to the success of addiction and/or mental health treatment regimens. Therefore, we urge Congress and the Administration to appropriate for FY 2003 at least $100 million for GBHI and at least $75 million for PATH.

3. End the criminalization of homelessness. People experiencing homelessness with behavioral health disorders are often inappropriately incarcerated in jails and prisons for committing public "nuisance crimes." Many such misdemeanors are direct results of the lack of access to housing, health care, and income. We urge Congress, the Administration, states, and localities to develop collaborative approaches among housing, health, social service, and criminal justice systems to divert people with behavioral health problems (mental illness and/or addiction disorders) from incarceration systems to organizations that provide the housing, health care, and support services that promote stability and recovery.

4. Establish policies and programs that incorporate a recovery model of behavioral health care. The United States drug control strategy that has focused on public education of the health and social consequences of drug use has produced positive outcomes in reducing the demand for illicit drugs. However, the singular focus on abstinence-only programming in the publicly funded addiction services system has served as a barrier to successful recovery for many. Mechanisms such as the establishment of mobile assessment teams, crisis sobriety/recovery centers, and needle exchange programs assist people in achieving recovery. We urge federal, state, and local governments to establish policies and programs that enable communities and providers to respond to the totality of needs of people affected by addiction, including people who are unable to achieve total abstinence.

5. Require health plans to cover behavioral health services in parity with coverage for other health services. Health care plans often place restrictions on the scope or length of treatment, or do not cover comprehensive behavioral health services. Consequently, people with health insurance must use publicly funded services because adequate private addiction and mental illness services are not available. In addition, Medicaid, the nation's public health care program for poor and disabled people, fails to provide coverage for addiction and/or mental illness in parity with coverage for treatment of other health conditions. We urge Congress and the Administration to require both private and public health care plans to cover behavioral health services in parity with other health care. We also urge Congress and the Administration to amend the Medicaid statute to require state Medicaid programs to include the full scope, amount, and duration of addiction and/or mental illness services in their covered benefits.

While the KQED "debate" with Newsom made the issue seem somewhat two sided, a recent program on KQED's Forum with mental health experts was universally harsh with Newsom and his evil proposition (its worth listening to all of this but the stuff about Newsom is near the end):

http://www.kqed.org/.stream/real/radio/forum/2002/10/2002-10-03a-forum.rm.ram

Todays debate on forum dealt with prop O and the Republican leader arguing against O makes it 100% clear that Cash Not Care will contain no care. A highlight (?) of the show is Rev Amos Brown calling in again to denounce homeless services; the guys morals were pretty questionable after the N show but claiming that housing the homeless is wrong HAS to be the lowest Brown has ever sunk (especially since he said yesterday he supported N because he wanted housing???).

Once the program is over audio will be on:
http://www.kqed.org/radio/forum/index.html

In a few days audio of the program will be under Oct 5 on:
http://www.kqed.org/radio/forum/previous/index.html

Notice all the "Yes On N no on O" signs. Its all about taking away homeless peoples money AND making sure they cant survive in SF. The business community wants to get rid of people and they dont care how. Just like Matrix it wont work (especially as homelessness increases as the economy tanks during a war), but it could also result in a large number of deaths.

Someone with audio editing software should get that Republican endorsement of Newsom on tape. They love him but he tries to pretend he isnt as conservative as he really is. Id bet anyone that in 20 years you will see him running as a Republican governor for CA.

Corporations are good. They even smell good. Homeless people are bad. They even smell bad.

A Plan, Not A Dream:
How to End Homelessness in Ten Years

The Cost of Homelessness

For mayors, city councils and even homeless providers it often seems that placing homeless people in shelters, while not the most desirable course, is at least the most inexpensive way of meeting basic needs. This is deceptive. The cost of homelessness can be quite high, particularly for those with chronic illnesses. Because they have no regular place to stay, people who are homeless use a variety of public systems in an inefficient and costly way. Preventing a homeless episode, or ensuring a speedy transition into stable permanent housing can result in a significant cost savings.

* In Minnesota, there was a $9,600 per person reduction in costs to the state once formerly homeless people were housed in supportive housing (comparing the annualized cost of supportive housing with that of mental health, detoxification, corrections, and health systems costs over two years). Further, such housing resulted in a 26% increase in employment. (1)

Following are some of the ways in which homelessness can be costly.


Hospitalization and Medical Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------
People who are homeless are more likely to access costly health care services.

* According to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine, homeless people spent an average of four days longer per hospital visit than did comparable non-homeless people. This extra cost, approximately $2,414 per hospitalization, is attributable to homelessness. (2)

* A study of hospital admissions of homeless people in Hawaii revealed that 1,751 adults were responsible for 564 hospitalizations and $4 million in admission cost. Their rate of psychiatric hospitalization was over 100 times their non-homeless cohort. The researchers conducting the study estimate that the excess cost for treating these homeless individuals was $3.5 million or about $2,000 per person. (3)

Homelessness both causes and results from serious health care issues, including addictive disorders. (4) Treating homeless people for drug and alcohol related illnesses in less than optimal conditions is expensive. Substance abuse increases the risk of incarceration and HIV exposure, and it is itself a substantial cost to our medical system.

* Physician and health care expert Michael Siegel found that the average cost to cure an alcohol related illness is approximately $10,660. Another study found that the average cost to California Hospitals of treating a substance abuser is about $8,360 for those in treatment, and $14,740 for those who are not. (5)

Prisons and Jails
-----------------------------------------------------
People who are homeless spend more time in jail or prison -- sometimes for crimes such as loitering -- which is tremendously costly.

* According to a University of Texas two-year survey of homeless individuals, each person cost the taxpayers $14,480 per year, primarily for overnight jail. (6)

* A typical cost of a prison bed in a state or federal prison is $20,000 per year (7)

Emergency Shelter
-----------------------------------------------------
Emergency shelter is a costly alternative to permanent housing. While it is sometimes necessary for short-term crises, it too often serves as long-term housing. The cost of an emergency shelter bed funded by HUD's Emergency Shelter Grants program is approximately $8,067 (8) more than the average annual cost of a federal housing subsidy (Section 8 Housing Certificate).

Lost Opportunity
-----------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most difficult cost to quantify is the loss of future productivity. Decreased health and more time spent in jails or prisons, means that homeless people have more obstacles to contributing to society through their work and creativity. Homeless children also face barriers to education.

Dr. Yvonne Rafferty, of Pace University, wrote an article which compiled earlier research on the education of homeless children, including the following findings:

* Fox, Barnett, Davies, and Bird 1990: 79% of 49 homeless children in NYC scored at or below the 10th percentile for children of the same age in the general population.

* 1993: 13% of 157 students in the sixth grade scored at or above grade level in reading ability, compared with 37% of all fifth graders taking the same test.

* Maza and Hall 1990: 43% of children of 163 families were not attending school.

* Rafferty 1991: attendance rate for homeless students is 51%, vs. 84% for general population.

* NYC Public Schools 1991: 15% of 368 homeless students were long-term absentee vs. 3.5% general population. (9)

Because many homeless children have such poor education experiences, their future productivity and career prospects may suffer. This makes the effects of homelessness much longer lasting than just the time spent in shelters.


1. T. Tilson, Minnesota Supportive Housing Demonstration Program: One Year Evaluation Report. New York City, New York, Corporation for Supportive Housing, 1998.
2. Salit S.A., Kuhn E.M., Hartz A.J., Vu J.M., Mosso A.L. Hospitalization costs associated with homelessness in New York City. New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 338: 1734-1740.
3. Martell J.V., Seitz R.S., Harada J.K., Kobayashi J., Sasaki V.K., Wong C. Hospitalization in an urban homeless population: the Honolulu Urban Homeless Project. Annals of Internal Medicine 1992; 116:299-303.
4. Rosenheck, R., Bassuk, E., Salomon, A., Special Populations of Homeless Americans, Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, US Department of Health and Human Services, August, 1999.
5. From the website of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, May 8, 2000.
6. Diamond, Pamela and Steven B. Schneed, Lives in the Shadows: Some of the Costs and Consequences of a "Non-System" of Care. Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1991.
7. Slevin, Peter, Life After Prison: Lack of Services Has High Price. The Washington Post, April 24, 2000.
8. Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Evaluation of the Emergency Shelter Grants Program, Volume 1: Findings September 1994. p 91.
9. Rafferty, Yvonne The Legal Rights and Educational Problems of Homeless Children and Youth pp 42-45. As reported on the website of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, May 8, 2000.

It was a struggle to even get through the first paragraph of your anti-Newsome piece, so full of distortions and reactionary blather it was. My problem/ point is that poor journalism, rallying, opining from the left is diminishing the gravity of issues.

Newsome does not have strong logic to back his ideology (namely Care-Not-Cash), but calling him names is damn insulting to anyone paying attention. Your socio-economic perspective appears unconsidered and is probably much more incompetent than Newsome's. As a country philosopher once said, "take your balls out of the vice."

Also, you might want to brush up on more context particular to SF's unique homeless culture. For instance, considering the complexity of what leads to chronic homelessness, your attempt at Marxist analysis (conspiracies of wealth/ a controlled bottom class) is out dated. The problem is truly systemic in San Francisco and unfortunately not so communicable on local levels (including your tavern, club, used clothing store, film society, open mic, along with super market, religious and corporate culture).

Conservatives like Newsome (all the way to Prez Bush) get over in part because of what ammounts to soft analysis and alternative for what they are saying and doing. SF's political culture is exploitable, not being overrun. SF has long roots in material and transient value systems, as it does in a substantial counter-culture. Accept it, try to understand it and if you can, please do your part to bring ideas that people suffer under to a light of clarification.

Hopefully the attitude (it was more attitude than ideas or experience) behind this article is not connected to an expectation for radical change. I hate to think of the choked writing that will result from the disappointment.

JM (SLP)

It was a struggle to even get through the first paragraph of your anti-Newsome piece, so full of distortions and reactionary blather it was. My problem/ point is that poor journalism, rallying, opining from the left is diminishing the gravity of issues.

Newsome does not have strong logic to back his ideology (namely Care-Not-Cash), but calling him names is damn insulting to anyone paying attention. Your socio-economic perspective appears unconsidered and is probably much more incompetent than Newsome's. As a country philosopher once said, "take your balls out of the vice."

Also, you might want to brush up on more context particular to SF's unique homeless culture. For instance, considering the complexity of what leads to chronic homelessness, your attempt at Marxist analysis (conspiracies of wealth/ a controlled bottom class) is out dated. The problem is truly systemic in San Francisco and unfortunately not so communicable on local levels (including your tavern, club, used clothing store, film society, open mic, along with super market, religious and corporate culture).

Conservatives like Newsome (all the way to Prez Bush) get over in part because of what ammounts to soft analysis and alternative for what they are saying and doing. SF's political culture is exploitable, not being overrun. SF has long roots in material and transient value systems, as it does in a substantial counter-culture. Accept it, try to understand it and if you can, please do your part to bring ideas that people suffer under to a light of clarification.

Hopefully the attitude (it was more attitude than ideas or experience) behind this article is not connected to an expectation for radical change. I hate to think of the choked writing that will result from the disappointment.

JM (SLP)

It was a struggle to even get through the first paragraph of your anti-Newsome piece, so full of distortions and reactionary blather it was. My problem/ point is that poor journalism, rallying, opining from the left is diminishing the gravity of issues.

Newsome does not have strong logic to back his ideology (namely Care-Not-Cash), but calling him names is damn insulting to anyone paying attention. Your socio-economic perspective appears unconsidered and is probably much more incompetent than Newsome's. As a country philosopher once said, "take your balls out of the vice."

Also, you might want to brush up on more context particular to SF's unique homeless culture. For instance, considering the complexity of what leads to chronic homelessness, your attempt at Marxist analysis (conspiracies of wealth/ a controlled bottom class) is out dated. The problem is truly systemic in San Francisco and unfortunately not so communicable on local levels (including your tavern, club, used clothing store, film society, open mic, along with super market, religious and corporate culture).

Conservatives like Newsome (all the way to Prez Bush) get over in part because of what ammounts to soft analysis and alternative for what they are saying and doing. SF's political culture is exploitable, not being overrun. SF has long roots in material and transient value systems, as it does in a substantial counter-culture. Accept it, try to understand it and if you can, please do your part to bring ideas that people suffer under to a light of clarification.

Hopefully the attitude (it was more attitude than ideas or experience) behind this article is not connected to an expectation for radical change. I hate to think of the choked writing that will result from the disappointment.

JM (SLP)

I have to say, I'm impressed. I'm from the East Coast, and your bottom-feeding, scum-sucking, heartless yuppie assholes are MUCH better looking than our bottom-feeding, scum-sucking, heartless yuppie assholes...

PS: I mean that in a good way, totally...

OG you should probably stay on the East Coast......please

I would, but it's worth the risk to move out there. Your ganja is also much better than ours, too, LOL. I've been spoiled by the samples my West Coast hookup gets me. Cali bud is bomb-ass. If i could get delivery, I'm McGarrett and Dano. I'll take my chances, besides, yuppies are scared of the brothers, so they'll cross the other side of the street when they see me walking

"Honey, quick! Get in the Volvo. It's another one of those violent, pot-crazed Negroes! I'll defend your lily white virtue even if he stabs me to death..."

Just kidding. I like white folks. I have to. It's in the Patriot Act now...

Remember: Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs...

No One Ever Really Dies

Most yuppies may be working class in the Marxian sense (they don't have the hire and fire power and/or own large amounts of capital), but yuppies are not going to be a significant force of social change given their economic class and "culture." Also, most yuppies tend to be downright hostile to ordinary people, even those that consider themselves "liberal."

I love common decent people. They're so good with a bearnaise sauce...

California has become the new Mexico/North Korea/Chilean/D.C.'s Corrupt bastion of Hell. The last refuge is now, at best, a quick over-priced holiday.

Read of the terrors endured. It never ends, in all of the US states, and I have the stats to prove it at the bottom of the webpage.

Remember the tune, "God Bless America"? Well it has a new wording and it goes, "Going Straight To Hell,L,L"

The chorus leader is in the pic below. There will be another coming along soon. It is a pea pod game with the same ethics, i.e. American Politics.

Read of the "New Blue Print To Democracy"

Free Pics
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/democracyordeath/

A San Francisco woman in her late 30s who was nine months pregnant remains in critical condition with brain injuries after a 25-year-old man allegedly beat her in her home Monday afternoon, forcing her child to be delivered in an emergency surgery hours later, authorities said. The child is alive and remains in unknown condition, according to a nursing supervisor at San Francisco General Hospital.

In what police said ended in a "random, senseless" act of brutality, Jerry Lucas, who has no listed address but is from Marin County, was initially ringing doorbells in the quiet residential neighborhood around Mullen Avenue and Brewster Street, when around 4 p.m. he spotted the pregnant woman on the street and followed her into her home, police said.

He then allegedly beat her with "such great force that it caused a part of her body to fall off," according to Inspector Raj Vaswami with the San Francisco Police Department, who declined to say what body part was severed and what weapon was used. "He just beat her until she stopped moving," he said.

Later, unaware of what had happened, officers approached the man on the street because he was "acting strangely." He was reportedly covered in purple paint and threatened the officers with a broomstick. They took him to San Francisco General Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

Meanwhile, the victim's husband arrived home and found his wife where she had been left for dead. When she was brought in to the General Hospital emergency room, fresh purple paint marked her body, similar in color to the paint on the suspect, according to Vaswami, who interviewed the man early Tuesday.

"He looked very unkempt," Vaswami said. "And he did make statements that implicated him." The evidence led to an arrest and the suspect was booked on suspicion of attempted homicide, first-degree burglary and mayhem. He is currently being held without bail.

I thought Newsom was older than 25?

I thought Newsom had sunk as low as he could go when he started trying to play up rich SF's fear of the poor (in much the way Hitler did for the Jews), but now hes going door to door attacking people...

Hello,
While I have no problem with your rhetoric, you should proof read your material before sending it, as well try doing research beofre accusing people of things unjustly. If these so called devils are doing everything for themselves and nothing for the public you would not be able to write such tripe and freely print it, also this city is losing millions of dollars anually due to the garbage and homeless problem.

same old same old
bait, bait, bait
bait and
switch

boorish cads, simpletons
"Say it Don't Spray It!"
will we ever be free?

foaming, boorish
foaming, torment
from mouthes never seen

unsolicited opinions
verbal terrorism drips free
frothing behind hidden identity--
it's only a virtual smoke screen
this can easily be seen

abuse upon abuse,
continued tolerance our only misdeed
lending a forum to base-hatreds and negativity

hardee-har
hee-diddle-dee
dim-witted attacks
oh whoop-dee-dee

Luke 16:19-31 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'

But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.

Just read that in the Chron - wtf?