DESPITE A JUDGE'S ruling nullifying the legislation, Sup. Gavin Newsom's heartless homeless plan, Care Not Cash, is still very much alive. Newsom has reintroduced it to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors – and at press time, it appeared likely he has at least five of the six votes he needs to win approval. Sups. Bevan Dufty, Jake McGoldrick, Aaron Peskin, and Gerardo Sandoval have all suggested publicly that they'll join Newsom in voting for the measure. If he can swing one more supervisor, he may succeed in getting the most progressive board in many years to approve one of the most regressive, nasty attacks on homeless people San Francisco has ever seen.

That would be a disaster. It would make an already harsh life much worse for some 3,000 homeless welfare recipients. It would undermine the progressive coalition and give Newsom a major victory six months before the mayoral election. And it would send a terrible message to the rest of the nation: San Francisco, the most liberal big city in America, can't figure out how to address homelessness without vicious, punitive attacks on the vulnerable population.

• • •

Newsom's plan, passed on last fall's ballot as Proposition N, would cut the monthly General Assistance payments to homeless people from about $395 to $59 a month. It won nearly 60 percent of the vote citywide after an expensive, misleading campaign that promised voters the measure would provide more services – housing, substance-abuse treatment, etc. – for the needy. Judge Ronald Quidachay overturned the law several weeks ago, ruling that under state law, only the supervisors have the authority to set welfare policy. City Attorney Dennis Herrera is appealing that ruling.

Peskin and McGoldrick both opposed Prop. N. Both also represent districts in which the measure passed by a large margin – and not surprisingly, they're loath to reject what's described as the "will of the voters." There's also an element of political strategy in their positions: they argue that Care Not Cash will never work and that it's better if Newsom is forced to take responsibility for a flawed program during the mayor's race. If the board rejects Prop. N – after the voters approved it – Newsom can campaign on the argument that the rest of the supervisors are out of touch with the public.

But the supervisors shouldn't vote for bad policy just because it makes sense in some sort of larger, Machiavellian political game. And while we understand why progressives like Peskin, McGoldrick, and Sandoval don't want to ignore the fact that some 60 percent of the voters in their districts supported Prop. N, it's fair and accurate to argue that those voters were misled by Newsom's campaign – that they believed they were supporting a very different program.

The official ballot argument for Care Not Cash promised that homeless people will receive "decent housing," as well as medical care, mental health treatment, and job training. That was a lie: Prop. N will do nothing more than move homeless G.A. recipients into crummy, unsafe city shelters (hardly "decent housing"). And there are no guarantees that any other services will be available.

If the supervisors want to carry out the will out the voters, they'd do a lot better to support Sup. Chris Daly's alternative plan, which would require the city to provide a real, stable housing unit for any homeless person whose cash benefits are reduced. While we're not thrilled with the prospect of reducing anyone's welfare payments, at least Daly's plan would ensure that some of the "care" is there before the cash goes away.

Daly's plan would slow down the process: the city simply doesn't have enough low-cost apartments or residential hotel rooms for even a fraction of the current homeless welfare recipients. It would also stop the displacement of existing shelter residents (some of them undocumented immigrants), who are being moved out to make room for people who receive G.A. And it would give the Department of Human Services less incentive to move forward with invasive (and somewhat scary) identification programs like biometric imaging.

Daly would be the first to admit his plan isn't perfect. In fact, in an ideal world, the supervisors should reject anything even remotely resembling Care Not Cash, end any talk of cutting welfare payments, and move to implement the Continuum of Care plan written by homeless activists and service providers. But the reality is that some type of program that forces some homeless people to give up some of their cash grants in exchange for better services is almost certain to pass. Daly's is at least rational and reasonably humane – and might actually do more good than harm.