THERE'S NO DOUBT that some politicians will use the recent court ruling on Care Not Cash to once again play politics on the backs of the homeless. As of this writing, it appears Sup. Gavin Newsom intends to further this strategy with a new ballot measure to ban panhandling, which will serve as a funnel for continued contributions this November from the hotel industry.

It's important for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to work together, so the city can move forward on the issue of homelessness. It's becoming painfully clear that plans formulated as campaign platforms will not result in real solutions.

Because of Proposition N/Care Not Cash, the Department of Human Services is considering removing homeless individuals from shelters to make room for the homeless on General Assistance who lose their benefits. Sup. Jake McGoldrick introduced legislation to address this problem. Clear analysis of Prop. N yields a painful truth: the city has neither the excess housing stock nor available shelter beds to meet the needs of the approximately 3,000 individuals in the County Adult Assistance Program who self-declare as homeless.

Sup. Chris Daly, with Sups. Fiona Ma and Sophie Maxwell, introduced a plan to reinstate Prop. N but to require provision of housing – not shelter – to those covered by the program. I support this proposal. This approach would address the promise offered by Prop. N supporters that the city will provide housing and care in lieu of cash. Unfortunately, Newsom chose to include emergency shelter in his definition of housing in the measure. Shelter should not qualify as permanent housing.

McGoldrick has also asked budget analyst Harvey Rose to look at some of these Prop. N implementation issues, with a report due out later this month.

Perhaps most important, we need to move the debate about homelessness beyond the issue of the city's homeless G.A. and CAAP recipients – who, by most counts, represent only a quarter of the city's homeless population. There are anywhere from 10,000 to 14,000 homeless individuals in San Francisco, including families, people with serious mental health diagnoses, and veterans on V.A. benefits.

I have asked the director of public health, working in conjunction with community organizations like the Mental Health Association of San Francisco, to develop a plan to address the needs of individuals who have been homeless for more than a year and have some form of disability (including mental health or dual diagnoses).

These individuals are, for the most part, not covered by Prop. N, and they represent among the neediest individuals living on our streets. The plan is due out in early September. Proposition O, which I authored last year and the Bay Guardian supported, contained specific strategies to deal with this population.

The solution for this population is simple and cost-effective: provide housing with supportive services. Controller Ed Harrington, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and numerous other sources agree that it is cheaper and safer to provide these services than to keep mentally ill individuals cycling in and out of emergency shelters, frequently tying up emergency services at San Francisco General Hospital and often requiring police intervention. Once stabilized in housing, many individuals can also maintain an appropriate course of mental health treatment that ends the cycle of self-medication with drugs and alcohol.

When we take up the city budget, we have to work together to avoid taking a huge step back in terms of mental health and substance abuse treatment services. The DPH has proposed nearly $10 million in service cuts in this area.

I am encouraged by these efforts to address homelessness. I am also encouraged by state senator John Burton's efforts to bring a compassionate voice to the problem through his street sign campaign. We need to stop vilifying the homeless in San Francisco.