By Rachel Brahinsky

SUP. GAVIN Newsom's response to the May 8 court decision killing much of his Care Not Cash program was predictable. Amid the media frenzy, the slick young mayoral candidate looked suitably wounded by the ruling nullifying the plan's policy centerpiece, which would have dramatically slashed welfare payments to the homeless.

"I don't see the need to amend the will of the voters," who passed Care Not Cash, he told the media after Superior Court Judge Ron Quidachay ruled that voters don't have the right to directly make welfare policy. The legislation, which was on last fall's ballot as Proposition N, passed easily, after a million-dollar campaign flattened the opposition with sleek media spots and mailers promising housing, food, job training, and mental health support for the indigent street population. Newsom has used the political base created in the ballot fight to position himself for this year's mayoral race.

So when Quidachay's ruling came down, essentially calling much of the measure illegal, it seemed on the surface like a crushing blow for Newsom, who has banked so much political capital on making it work. Instead, the judgment has begun to look like political manna from heaven for the Newsom for Mayor campaign.

For starters, it gave the candidate a new platform and an opportunity to look like a populist as he waxed fondly about the voters' will. It also came at a crucial moment for the program, stalling the measure just as it was becoming clear that the fiscal realities of implementing Care Not Cash wouldn't live up to campaign promises.

Yet the future is wide open. The city's homeless policy is not decided, and the mayor's race has only just begun. There are ways for progressives on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to salvage the moment and actually help homeless people – in spite of the terrible state of the budget. By doing so, they could strike a blow against Newsom's campaign operation, which hopes the homeless issue will help make him mayor.

(For the record, Newsom's campaign consultant Eric Jaye told us Newsom is not making such political calculations and is solely "focused on making sure Care Not Cash is implemented.")

This is a crucial moment for the San Francisco left – particularly for those supervisors who were elected to make change and challenge the power structure that gave birth to Newsom the politician. The ruling may strengthen Newsom's mayoral front-runner status, but there's also a scenario under which progressives can take the reins, enact some meaningful homeless policy, and cast Care Not Cash as mean-spirited reform disguised as concerned social policy – thus showing Newsom doesn't belong in the mayor's office.

Some say it won't be hard to show that Care Not Cash doesn't add up. "Newsom has got the public believing he's the only one who believes giving people services is better than giving cash," board president Matt Gonzalez told us. "Well, that's an easy concept to get behind. I'd love to give everybody housing, medicine, and food. Sign me up. The question is, Is the mechanism you've come up with going to do that?"

There are all sorts of ways things could play out over the next few months, but here are the three most likely scenarios:

Scenario one: The progressives capitulate

It was a bold move for Newsom to choose homelessness as his platform issue. Others before him have tried and failed for various reasons. For one thing, city officials will always have a hard time solving homelessness because there's no sound national policy in place establishing affordable housing in every state, paired with ample living-wage jobs.

Nevertheless, Newsom has been credited for trying something new. And it seems that's what the voters wanted. Pollster David Binder surveyed San Franciscans on the issue throughout the 2002 election season. While he said most people probably didn't understand the details of the legislation, their votes were meant to send a message.

"The people were saying the current system isn't working," Binder said. "They wanted a change, and they wanted to help people." While they wanted to increase social services, they also wanted to cut welfare grants. "People who thought it was wrong to reduce grants voted no."

With Newsom expected at press time to have reintroduced Care Not Cash at the May 13 board meeting, opposing the measure would seem to some like political suicide. That's why it's easy to imagine that supervisors feel compelled to pass it. The minute the court decision was announced, Newsom supporters immediately went to work, pressuring supervisors who opposed Prop. N before their constituents went on to approve it.

To get the board to pass the legislation, Newsom needs six votes, and given the political dynamics, he just might find them. "I'm going to vote for whatever is introduced," Sup. Jake McGoldrick told us. "I'll make sure Mr. Newsom doesn't take this and ride it to Room 200 [the mayor's office]. We will challenge him to actually implement those promises made under Prop. N."

The idea is that it could be a good thing for the board to simply pass the plan, let Care Not Cash fail, and move on to develop better legislation to fix it. That would get Newsom out of the headlines – but could leave the homeless to suffer from the measure's shortcomings in the meantime.

Already, as the city began implementing Prop. N, homeless people who aren't on welfare have been bumped from shelters in favor of welfare clients – a trade-off needed to begin making the Care Not Cash account books balance, even if it doesn't reduce the number of homeless on the street.

Scenario two: The progressives waffle

For the past year and a half, board members have tried to come up with workable solutions to the homeless problem. Yet gridlock and disagreements – and the failure of Sup. Tom Ammiano's Proposition O at the ballot – have kept many significant pieces of legislation off the books.

It's possible this indecision could go on indefinitely, with no board member stepping into the leadership role – leaving Newsom to continue to fill the void. Strategically, the onus is on Ammiano – whose own mayoral bid could become the sacrificial lamb to the board's inability to move – to step up with a solid consensus plan.

Ammiano tells us he's ready for the challenge. "I don't think anybody really wants to go back to [the Prop. N] formula," he said. "This is not a time to back away from the issue. I'm willing to work with whoever is necessary."

If Ammiano fails, and if the city's appeal of Judge Quidachay's ruling fails, then there is no high-profile plan for solving the homeless problem – something voters have clearly said they want addressed.

That opens up the possibility that Newsom may not have to prove Care Not Cash could work while still reaping the political benefit of being known as the only one who could put together – and decisively pass – a plan for the homeless.

As the mayor's race heats up, there's no question Newsom's camp will use that status to portray him as mayoral material.

Scenario three: The progressives take control

Already there are signs that the board leadership is not planning to back down. In addition to Ammiano's call for collaborating on solutions, Gonzalez has kicked into gear – scheduling a press conference to precede one organized by the Newsom camp. He told us he asked homeless and welfare rights advocates to take the lead on directing the board.

Before the court ruling there were other, less publicized plans in the works. Sup. Chris Daly's ordinance setting aside surplus city-owned land for housing is moving forward. By the end of the month a report is expected identifying how much land is available. Daly has also called for a June 5 hearing to publicly examine the $104 million the city spends on direct homeless services to see what can be better spent.

And McGoldrick's legislation, to establish a fair policy for giving out shelter beds, will be heard by the board in the coming weeks. He's also requested a budget analysis on Prop. N implementation.

Meanwhile, Gonzalez wants to establish a city minimum wage. After a report came out last week showing a wage hike wouldn't significantly hurt business – while vastly improving the lives of the poor – Gonzalez called on Prop. N supporters to back his plan.

"I find it hypocritical to support Care Not Cash but not an increase in the minimum wage," Gonzalez said.

All of these things could be fused together as a package by the board leadership. In a sense, the Care Not Cash court decision presents an important opportunity for progressives to revisit ideas that have been shelved for too long.

The city's Continuum of Care plan lays out 209 pages of policy initiatives and goals. The board could remind the public that the plan exists – and could follow through on its recommendations.

A few key elements of the plan: prioritize housing within the budget process, establish a shelter monitoring committee to watch out for safety and to help transition people into housing, pay people a living wage, starting with welfare clients who work for the city, and stop cuts on mental health and drug rehabilitation programs.

Those proposals cost money, but several supervisors have suggested budget cuts could begin with things like top-dollar city salaries and the proposed multimillion-dollar redesign of United Nations Plaza.

The ability to cooperatively pass, implement, and fund such programs, prior to the election, will be key in deflecting some of the criticism that has built up against the district-elected board. The resulting coalition could also help the board as other difficult legislation comes down the pike.

And there's a chance progressives could succeed. In a sense, as Gonzalez told us, it's a straightforward task. "We'll come out of it just fine," he said, "as long as we don't stall."

E-mail Rachel Brahinsky