by Randy Shaw on October 10, 2023 (BeyondChron.org)
Care Not Cash (Prop N) won big in 2002
Breed Welfare Proposal Fuels the Conflict
Mayor Breed’s September 26 plan to connect drug use with welfare eligibility captured what San Francisco’s 2024 elections are all about. Breed wants the mayoral election to focus on her policy views, which she believes (correctly in my view) that a majority of voters support. Her opponents want voters to question the mayor’s managerial competence, highlighting the city’s many problems that the mayor has failed to solve.
Breed’s drug plan was huge news when released because it so perfectly tapped into the city’s ideological divide. But subsequent days found the actual plan falling far short of what its original social media backers claimed..
Breed’s Savvy Move
Mayor Breed’s team deserves credit for trying in one big move to redefine what’s at stake in the November 2024 elections. The mayor’s approval numbers are under water. Most voters see the city going in the wrong direction. It’s a tough ask for a mayor who will have been in office for nearly six years to escape chief responsibility for the city’s problems.
But that’s the strategy Breed is using. She has convinced many moderates that the Board of Supervisors, a Commission system, a rogue Health Department and other factors outsider her control have prevented her from solving problems. Now Breed has seized upon an issue—conditioning welfare payments on agreement to drug treatment—that most San Francisco voters will support. It is perfectly designed to become legislation that fails at the Board. Breed will then place it on the November 2024 ballot, framing the mayoral campaign around an issue where she has strong support.
When I first read about Breed’s plan I thought she was revisiting the Care Not Cash debate of 2002. Gavin Newsom’s plan was attacked for the same reasons Breed’s proposal was vilified—-and voters resoundingly approved it. San Francisco decided that the city should not just give out money to those eligible for welfare but condition full grants on their accepting housing. Accepting drug treatment is just another version of this.
Like Care Not Cash, Breed’s plan is about the nature of freedom. Opponents believe the poor should have the freedom to spend city funds however they want. Supporters do not want taxpayer dollars going for drugs; they support restricting freedom in exchange for accepting public funds.
Supervisor Dean Preston denounced Breed’s plan for targeting what he called the “most vulnerable.” Preston sees drug users as more vulnerable and worthy of protection than the immigrant Tenderloin parents working two jobs to support their families. Preston gave the back of his hand to nearly 200 Tenderloin small businesses pleading for more police to stop drug activities; despite the closure of Turtle Tower, La Cocina, Piano Fight and other Tenderloin small businesses, they are not included in Preston’s concern with the “most vulnerable.”
Breed backers want opponents of her plan to be deemed pro-drug user and dealers. That there is no actual legislation to support is beside the point. Daniel Lurie, who announced his candidacy the same day Breed unveiled her plan, pointed out that the mayor has proposed other plans that lacked follow through. Lurie’s doubts whether the city could enforce the welfare plan led him to be denounced by Breed supporters as being against public safety and aligned with “far left” supervisors. Former Breed Chief of Staff Conor Johnston even called on Lurie to drop out of the race.
Aaron Peskin responded to Breed’s plan by asking why the city still hasn’t closed open air drug markets. But that question has become old news. It was lost amidst the new political debate about drug treatment for welfare recipients. That there appears no end in sight to open air drug markets in San Francisco is off the media radar.
Lack of a Specific Plan
On September 30, only four days after Breed’s announcement but well after the news cycle passed. I saw this tweet from recovery advocate @Gina-MADAD: The Exec Dir @SFHumanServices, Trent Rhorer, said that under @LondonBreed plan, “no one on welfare would be tested for drugs unless they self-disclosed an addiction or seemed high during an evaluation.” Rhorer said “no one would be required to stop using drugs.”
Wait a minute. You mean that the transformative anti-drug tourism measure recovery advocates were praising doesn’t apply unless welfare applicants voluntarily disclose they are addicts? That’s not likely to happen. Especially after the outreach efforts the Coalition on Homelessness is certain to do. As for denying welfare being triggered by applicants “seemingly high” during an evaluation, good luck proving in court that eligibility workers have the medical skills to make such determinations.
So at the end of the day concerns raised that Breed was offering an announcement and not specific, major legislation seemed correct. She mobilized a base to support a measure whose fine print is not what her backers thought it was.
Those excited about what seemed a great strategy to reduce drug tourism need to find out what the measure actually involves. And maybe keep a better eye on the facts. Those denouncing Lurie for opposing the welfare plan also accused him of supporting safe injection sites. But that was based on a screen shot Lurie’s campaign used of London Breed’s statement supporting such sites (Lurie came out against safe injection sites last week).
The Peskin Factor
Many in the “moderate” camp have escalated their attacks on Aaron Peskin. The fear is that if he runs he can win.
I’m confused by these attacks for two reasons.
First, everything I read from moderates on the site formerly known as Twitter sees a heretofore under-informed majority allowing a radical left minority to run the city. The School Board and Boudin recalls are seen as a precursor to larger moderate gains in 2024.
But if Peskin’s allegedly radical left views aren’t widely popular, why worry about him running for mayor? Don’t moderates want a publicly identified progressive in the race so they can defeat that candidate and send a national message about true San Francisco values?
Please don’t give me the false analogy to Boudin’s win via Ranked Choice Voting. Moderate supporters of Nancy Tung gave their second place votes to Boudin over Loftus because they were mad the latter got temporarily appointed DA. That race had unique facts. Moderate and progressive voters typically do not pass up like minded candidates on their second and third choices.
I’m also confused about attacks on Peskin because they don’t seem to understand his personality. Attacking Peskin as a potential mayoral candidate is the best way to convince him to run.
Left anger over the mayor’s welfare plan increases the chances that a candidate backed by “progressives” will run. Breed’s strategy of solidifying her own base comes at the expense of making Peskin’s or another progressive’s entry more likely.
The fight is on and we are still more than a year away from Election Day.
Randy Shaw
Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which publishes Beyond Chron. Shaw’s latest book is Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America. He is the author of four prior books on activism, including The Activist’s Handbook: Winning Social Change in the 21st Century, and Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century. He is also the author of The Tenderloin: Sex, Crime and Resistance in the Heart of San Francisco
