Homelessness Letters

When I moved back to the city in 1995, I was shocked at the sheer numbers of the homeless on the streets. I first lived in SF in 1961, and I can testify to the fact that mass homelessness on city streets is a relatively recent phenomenon. I suspect that part of the political inertia we’ve seen on the issue is because a whole generation of city dwellers has grown up with the implicit belief that mass homelessness is the normal state of affairs in SF. It’s not, but that’s another consequence of the liberal-left’s political negligence on the issue.

Isn’t This an Emergency? (in SF Chronicle, June 1, 1998)
Editor:
Whatever happened to the homeless? Or rather, whatever happened to the Chronicle’s coverage of the issue? It’s been months since the last sweep of the parks by the city forcing the homeless out into the neighborhoods. Yet the homeless are still on the streets, especially in neighborhoods such as the Haight-Ashbury. Is that it? Are we supposed to reject the homeless living in the parks and accept their living on the streets? Does the city have a policy, or is the mayor just waiting for the next crisis?
The Chronicle reported months ago that an average of 100 people a year are dying on the streets of the city. Isn’t this an emergency? The city has a $100 million budget surplus. Why isn’t it being used---for drug counseling, shelters, etc.---to get and keep people off the streets? We need some follow-through on this issue.

Rob Anderson
San Francisco

A Real Solution: Anticipating Gavin Newsom (in SF Chronicle, Feb. 16, 1999)
Editor:
The solution to the city’s homeless problem is simple conceptually but, alas, politically difficult. It’s especially risky for Mayor Brown, who, in spite of his reputation for shooting from the hip, is politically timid. He’s used to carefully counting the heads and votes before he acts.
The solution: Insist on the principle that no one has a right to live on the city’s streets. Enforce it by arresting anyone who, for whatever reason, persists in defying this principle by living in streets or parks.
Just as important, however, the city must couple this policy by offering adequate shelter and services---like drug counseling---to those in genuine need. This will be expensive, but it could be sold to a grateful electorate as a genuine, compassionate but firm solution to a distressing and persistent problem.
The extreme left---like Food Not Bombs and the pie-throwers---will object, because it will put them out of business. Everyone else will be so grateful they will vote for whichever mayoral candidate advocates this real solution to the problem.

Rob Anderson
San Francisco

The Homeless Problem Spreads (in SF Examiner, Feb. 19, 1999)
Editor:
Now that, as reported in the Examiner, the homeless are fanning out into the neighborhoods, why not actually solve the problem before it gets even worse? The solution is conceptually simple, though politically difficult for institutional liberalism---the Democratic Party and the unions---to face.
Mayor Brown, for all his shooting from the hip, is politically cautious. He likes to count the votes before he takes an initiative, and he is probably too timid to advocate anything bold. If so, let’s get someone else.
The solution: the city asserts and enforces the principle that no one has a right to live on the streets or in the parks. Just as important: it couples that assertion with enough shelter and services---like drug programs---to fill the actual need.
Once this is done, anyone who persists in defying city policy will be arrested for vagrancy and dealt with as compassionately as possible.
This policy will be expensive, but it can be sold politically to an electorate grateful for a firm, compassionate and genuine solution to a distressing problem. The extreme left---like Food Not Bombs and the pie-throwers---will protest because it will put them out of business. The other 99 percent of the city’s population will support the policy.

Rob Anderson
San Francisco

Taking the Next Step
Subject: Homelessness: the Next Step
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000
From: Rob Anderson
To: chronletters@sfgate.com
Editor:
Now that the recent count of the homeless---which even the city admits was inadequate---is done, why not take the next step? We need policy initiatives bold enough to address the dimensions of the problem. If the mayor can push through a $100 million bond to help the billionaire owners of the 49ers build a stadium, why not a similar effort to help the homeless get off the streets? A $100 million bond to deal with homelessness in the city would be an excellent start.

Rob to Rob
Subject: The Cesspool
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
From: Rob Anderson
To: Rob Morse <rmorse@sfchronicle.com>
Rob:
Right on the money this morning. The rather shocking SF policy failure re the homeless is a failure of the left. The libs and the rads can't seem to do any kind of useful analysis of "homelessness," i.e., making a distinction between people with housing problems and those bent on self-destruction---not that there isn't a lot of overlap. People are complicated and often have overlapping problems. But why is it so hard to accept this as a matter of principle?: People living/dying on our streets is not acceptable. If we can all agree on that, it's then a matter of agreeing on the means to the end, which will involve a lot of money and manpower. If we need more money, we should raise taxes on all our pricey real estate. A zero-tolerance for homelessness will also involve more aggressive "intervention" with those who are obviously mentally ill. The left seems to think that people have a constitutional right to commit slow-mo suicide on our streets.

Solar Power but Not Homeless Shelters
From: Rob Anderson
To: Rob Morse
Sent: Jan. 9, 2002
Subject: Homelessness
Mr. Morse:
Good column this morning. The city-that-supposedly-knows-how continues to be pathetic on homelessness, in part because we’ve been paralyzed by guilt and political confusion. But this is one disaster that we can’t blame on conservatives, since they are a tiny minority in the city. A complacent liberalism and a delusional radical left that is driven by anti-capitalist ideology are both to blame for our present state. Funny that this supposedly progressive city can get a huge bond for solar power on the ballot but not for more homeless shelters or more drug counseling.

Newsom is Good News for the City
From: Rob Anderson
To: letters@sfchronicle.com
Sent: Jan. 9, 2002
Subject: Homelessness
Editor:
The thing that upsets liberals and radicals even more than homelessness itself is that they can’t blame the ongoing catastrophe on our city streets on conservatives! A complacent liberalism and a radical left intoxicated by anti-capitalist ideology have combined to allow more than 100 people a year to die on city streets.
As your recent editorial pointed out, the city has until now lacked the political will to deal seriously with homelessness. That Gavin Newsom seems willing to make the issue the centerpiece of his campaign for mayor is the best news this city has had in years.

Newsom’s “Gamble”
From: Rob Anderson
To: Phil Matier
Sent: Jan. 9, 2002
Subject: Newsom’s “Gamble”
Since the issue of homelessness has been virtually ignored by liberals and the radical left in the city, Newsom’s calculation that it should be the centerpiece in his campaign for mayor may not be such a big gamble after all. There’s been a leadership vacuum on the issue during Willie Brown’s tenure as mayor. Newsom sees that there’s a potential political majority for some serious action, and he may be right.

Timid Liberals and the Crackpot Left
From: Rob Anderson
To: Jon Carroll
Sent: Jan. 10, 2002
Subject: Homelessness in SF
You are partly right in putting the knock on Newsom, but my understanding is that he plans to make homelessness in the city a central issue in his campaign for mayor. Of course pushing people off center dividers is strictly cosmetic and inadequate. But SF has long been captive of the ideologically-driven advocates of the homeless on the issue, the implication of[their advocacy] is that homelessness is just another manifestation of our wicked capitalist system and nothing much can/should be done about it beyond protecting what they see as the rights of the homeless. The upshot of their efforts has been legitimizing homelessness as a way of life, with more than 100 homeless people a year dying on our streets. A timid, easily cowed liberal establishment and the crackpot left have put us in this fix, and we need a new look at the problem. At the very least, Newsom’s interest in the issue will focus public awareness on the issue.
Good to see you throwing a bouquet to Dance to the Music of Time the other day. Great book! See also Evelyn Waugh’s trilogy on WWII, Sword of Honor, another great book.

We Need to Stop Making Excuses
From: Rob Anderson
To: letters@sfchronicle.com
Sent: Jan. 28, 2002
Subject: Is There the Will?
Editor:
The Sunday Chronicle’s editorial on homelessness wonders whether there’s a political will to do something meaningful about homelessness in the city. At the least, your editorial is an important part of forming that will, as is Supervisor Newsom’s apparent decision to make homelessness an issue.
This progressive city’s political will on this issue has been paralyzed by a lack of leadership from the left, which seems to believe that living and dying on our streets is just another lifestyle in our wicked capitalist system.
You’re right: we need to quit making excuses for our shameful inaction.
And let’s dispose of what is shaping up as the most up-to-date excuse---a lack of money during a recession. Property owners in the city were the main beneficiaries of the dotcom boom, so why not raise property taxes to pay for a serious attempt to deal with homelessness?

Atoning for Years of Leftist Neglect
From: Rob Anderson
To: letters@sfchronicle.com
Sent: March 5, 2002
Subject: Street Sweep
Editor:
I’m sorry to hear that Supervisor Newsom’s sensible, humane plan to deal with homelessness is given “little chance of passage under the current Board of Supervisors,” as one of your stories reported on Monday.
Progressive supervisors should support Newsom’s approach if only to atone for years of left/liberal neglect of the issue of homelessness. Instead of seeing it for what it is---an ongoing tragedy for the homeless and the city---the liberal/left has treated homelessness as just another lifestyle under capitalism. Actually, mass homelessness is a relatively recent phenomenon in SF, and, as a progressive community, we have simply failed to deal with it adequately. We can’t blame this one on the conservatives.
Interested readers should get a copy of Newsom’s[proposed] approach from his office and judge for themselves.

Letter to Frank Gallagher
From: Rob Anderson
To: fgallagher@sfexaminer.com
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002
Subject: Ammiano and the Vision Thing
Frank:
The dirty little secret of SF politics: the left is the main obstacle to actually doing something about homelessness. Ammiano is no exception, as he too is ideologically hostage to the Coalition on Housing. And the Bay Guardian goes for months without even mentioning the issue.
I don’t care about Newsom’s politics; at least he’s willing to be out front on the most important issue in the city.
Sounds like you’re on to the so-called progressives. Get them down and give them the boot.

Rob to Rob II
From: Rob Anderson
To: rmorse@sfchronicle.com
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002
Subject: Just Dizzy
Rob:
Good analysis of slippery political terms. There really is no safe refuge in such terms, though the radical left seems to think there is. How can it possibly be good that people are living and dying on our streets? Yet “progressives” imply that this is just the price we have to pay for living under our wicked capitalist system. What crap! Most of them are too young to remember that the phenomenon of mass homelessness is a relatively recent development. Before 1980 there were only a few homeless on the streets of SF. So did capitalism become more wicked in the last 20 years? Well, to a certain extent it did: rents kept skyrocketing, the state hospitals closed, etc. Even so other major cities are doing better dealing with the problem. What’s odd is how complacent the so-called progressives are about the problem, which they seem to think is a lifestyle choice for the poor, while the more conservative among us are the ones who insist on doing something about it.
As a former radical who’s morphed into a much despised liberal, I agree that people living on our streets is completely unacceptable. These are public spaces, and both civic pride and compassion compel us to do something about it. I don’t care if Newsom is a conservative or a liberal; at least he’s tackling a difficult issue head-on, unlike Emperor Brown, who threw up his hands early in his first term. Liberals like Willie Brown give liberals a bad name.
Also: in a city (note that the word doesn’t require the precious capital “C”) where most people are renters and, whether Hall’s initiative passes or not, will never be able to buy a home, condo-ing off rental properties isn’t progressive in my book.
But what do I know? I’m just a liberal.

Achieving a Consensus
From: Rob Anderson
To: letters@sfchronicle.com
Sent: Nov. 11, 2002
Subject: Those Who Opposed Prop N
Editor:
Yesterday’s No on N correspondent, Melissa Schweisguth, vows “to continue to press for real and comprehensive solutions that are humane and proven to succeed.” It would be helpful if she would be more specific and share those solutions with the rest of us. Surely the status quo, with more than 100 of the homeless dying every year in SF, is neither effective nor humane. Instead of doing their utmost to sabotage the humane implementation of Propostion N, the No on N folks should pitch in to help make it work. There is a consensus to be achieved on this issue, if we have the determination and goodwill to do it.

Shameful Spirit
From: Rob Anderson
To: letters@sfchronicle.com
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Dave Ford and the Spirit of the City
Editor:
Dave Ford calls the Hotel Council’s billboard campaign against panhandling a “shameful slap at the spirit of San Francisco.”
Nice alliteration, but he should direct his wrath at the city’s so-called progressives. Like Gavin Newsom, the Hotel Council is simply filling a political vacuum left by the rather shocking abdication of the city’s liberal-left leadership on the issue of homelessness.
Ford’s attempt to conflate the gay issue with homelessness is likewise unconvincing. To a hammer, the whole world may look like a nail, but that doesn’t make it so.

Can the Good People Be Wrong?
From: Rob Anderson
To: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003
Subject: Do-nothing City
Debra:
You’re absolutely right about the peculiar political inertia in SF re homelessness, except that you should have placed the political blame where it belongs---on the left and the so-called progressives. As something of a lefty myself, I’ve been shocked at their stupidity and all-around bad faith on this issue.
It’s interesting to speculate as to why this should be the case. After all, hasn’t the political left prided itself historically on being on the side of the poor and the downtrodden? My conclusion is that there are two more or less related and tacit assumptions behind the left’s lameness on the issue. One is a kind of misguided libertarianism that tends to see homelessness as just another lifestyle in a tolerant city. Another is the Marxoid notion that people living in the streets is what we have to expect from our wicked capitalist system.
Both assumptions don’t hold up under examination, and progressive leaders in the city should take the lead in exposing them. Alas, they are suffering under the same delusions.
Finally, there’s the impenetrable smugness on the left: they are the Good People, so how can they be wrong on such an important issue? (Someone needs to write an update of the Tom Lehrer song, “Love me I’m a
Liberal.”) And the two smuggest liberals on the board represent the two most liberal districts, Ammiano and Gonzalez.
Anyhow, as a lefty at last I can understand how annoyingly complacent and self-righteous my comrades can be!

Failed Leadership
From: Rob Anderson
To: letters@sfchronicle.com
Sent: September 22, 2003
Subject: Ammiano’s Failed Leadership
Editor:
That the Chronicle could print a long political profile of Supervisor Tom Ammiano and not mention homelessness speaks volumes about the failure of progressive leadership on the most important issue facing the city.
Progressives have botched this issue because, in a state of ideological confusion, they see the homeless as an oppressed class that is under attack from the establishment.
The non-ideological reality: homelessness is a social emergency that requires bold political action from the city’s leadership. Gavin Newsom understands this; Ammiano and many city progressives evidently don’t.

Smugness on the Left
From: Rob Anderson
To: letters@sfexaminer.com
Sent: Sept. 22, 2003
Subject: Smugness on the Left
Editor:
Let me see if I have this right: Gavin Newsom, along with a majority of SF voters, is concerned about people living and dying on our streets. Matt Gonzalez and other progressive leaders view this ongoing tragedy with apparent equanimity and even accuse Newsom of attacking the homeless!
Progressive leaders have simply failed the city on the homeless issue, which is why many progressives like me will be voting for Gavin Newsom for mayor.

Chronic Homelessness Can Be Ended
From: Rob Anderson
To: dlazarus@sfchronicle.com
Sent: October 14, 2003
Subject: Ending Homelessness
Mr. Lazarus:
“Chronic homelessness can be ended.” Yes! The problem is that most “progressive” leaders in SF don’t seem to believe that. The reason is evidently ideological: leftist ideology, SF branch, sees the homeless as just another oppressed class to be defended. Hence, the problem is systemic and can’t really be solved within our wicked capitalist system (see Matt Gonzalez’s remarks re the “root causes” of homelessness a few weeks ago).
John Hardin is right that a left-right-center coalition is possible to solve the problem, but thus far it’s been the left that has balked, not the right, which is miniscule in the city anyhow.
And I say this as a lefty myself. It was only pathetic progressive leadership letting the homeless problem fester for years that allowed Gavin Newsom the opening to make it the centerpiece of his mayoral campaign. Hence, he gets my vote for mayor. The city’s progressive leadership has simply failed on this important issue. Quick, what’s Gonzalez’s policy on homelessness? Nothing much except sniping at Newsom and Care Not Cash. Not good enough.

Why Did it Take So Long? (in SF Examiner, May 4, 2004)
Editor:
Your editorial on the “turning point” in San Francisco’s struggle with homelessness really refers to the curious lack of political will on the issue in the country’s most progressive city. Why did it take us so long to reach this point? My theory: City progressives saw the homeless as just another oppressed class to defend, which, in practice, turned them into defenders of the status quo.
Your editorial didn’t give Gavin Newsom the credit he deserves for moving the city off dead center on the homeless issue.

Rob Anderson
San Francisco