Newsom: Green Day, Trump and some good ideas

In which I read Gavin Newsom's State of the State so you don't have to.

As we have often said, Gov. Gavin Newsom is a man of a thousand ideas.

And, as we have often added, someone need to convince him to narrow it down to three of those ideas and focus on them.

Last week he not only took that proposal, he went one better. Newsom devoted his entire State of the State address to one issue — homelessness.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get to comment on this right away, and so was scooped by wily former SF Mayor Willie Brown. In his column, Brown made the point I was going to suggest — you want to pick political targets that are achievable. (Brown’s mayoral experience, when he promised to fix Muni in 100 days, reinforces that point.)

Making a goal of ending homelessness is a lose-lose. First, we’ve been looking for a solution to homelessness for decades. And frustration has only grown. What is more likely is homelessness will continue to be a problem, and even the progress that is made will not be seen as enough.

Enjoy this newsletter? Click on the button to have it delivered to your inbox. It’s free and I promise you will get full value for the price.

Which is not to say homelessness should not be addressed. A recent poll showed it is the #1 concern among California voters. Not to mention a president who is happy to mock us for an inability to do something about tents on the streets.

And that was what was important about Newsom’s speech. It wasn’t really just about homelessness. Because as we know there are many layers — from low-paying jobs, to drug addiction to mental illness to the simple fact that affordable housing is not available — to not having a home.

And to his credit, Newsom hit all of those. (And no we are not going into each of them here.) But from a sly Green Day reference, to a shot at “the boasts, bleats and Tweets” of someone in Washington, Newsom covered a lot of ground.

But also made a lot of sense.

First, and perhaps most important, he made the case for a comprehensive, state-wide program to “replace California’s scattershot approach.”

This is my complaint with well-intentioned billionaires like Marc Benioff. Benioff has done worlds of good for the city of San Francisco and he deserves undying credit. But when he wrote, promoted and passed an ordinance to collect and direct some $300 million to homeless prevention, it raises some questions.

What about Oakland? Or San Jose? Or Santa Rosa for that matter? They don’t have access to a super fund. Are they just supposed to make do? And is throwing more money at the problem the best solution, compared to a state-wide system?

Newsom is pushing for more housing, more Navigation Center-style facilities “emergency measures to increase shelter and services.”

At that point he made an important pivot, stepping into the controversy about people with “complex behavioral health needs.”

Yep. He’s going to go there. Newsom is talking about conservatorships, where a severely mentally ill person could be confined and compelled to take his medications. It’s always been controversial, and there is bound to be pushback from mental health advocates.

But Newsom makes a point I have always found compelling. Talk to the families and the loved ones of these desperately mentally ill individuals. They tell stories of trying to get their son or daughter or brother into full time care. They fear for the person’s life, and in some cases they fear for themselves.

I’ve heard people say no more than 75-100 people on the streets in San Francisco would qualify for conservatorship. Their point being that it wouldn’t make much of a difference.

Actually, I think it would make a helleva difference. In fact, that’s how I think it will be possible to finally get our hands around homelessness. One small step at a time.

Of course Gov. Newsom is a guy who likes big, impressive strides. And I’m not saying he’s wrong.

At least he’s focusing on the right problems.

Feel free to share this with friends. (In fact, it is the only way we’ll get new subscribers.) Just click on the button below.

Buster Posey or Buster Keaton? Speak up

You know Buster Posey — quiet, doesn’t have much to say. I always thought he was kind of dull. In a nice, wholesome way, but not very interesting.

Then at this year’s Fanfest, Posey had an interview with a group of reporters and was a whole new guy — funny, perceptive and a little bit of a smart ass.

As I said in my Santa Rosa Press Democrat column, I talked to him afterward and made the following suspicious accusation — “You’re funny.”

And he pretty much admitted that he intentionally keeps his personality down during the season. I’ve even heard other in the Giants’ organization say how much fun he is during the off-season, compared to his wooden personality during the year.

That’s his choice, of course, but I’d argue it isn’t the right one. First, if you are going to be the face of the franchise, sometimes you have to be the voice too. And second, it sets a bad tone in a clubhouse that is notable for its lack of energy.

I even got a message from a former Giant saying he liked the column. But maybe I’m wrong. Check it out and let me know.

Meanwhile in Oakland: an on-going series

You know what they say in Arkansas. Thank God for Alabama.

Because they always feel like, even if Arkansans messed up and did something dumb, you could count on Alabama to do something even more messed up and dumber.

And in this model, San Francisco is Arkansas.

You have probably followed the political sideshow that is the Oakland Police Commission and its firing of Chief Anne Kirkpatrick. As you have heard, the seven unelected Commission members wanted to get rid Kirkpatrick. But because they couldn’t reach a finding of “just cause,” they needed the consent of Mayor Libby Schaaf.

Schaaf presumably made the political calculation that it would be easier not to buck the Commission, rather than defend the chief she hired.

But the circumstances left plenty of murkiness about the real motive of the firing, which Kirkpatrick has been happy to fill with tales of Commissioner Ginale Harris causing a wild scene at a school, while attempting to pick up her son. Or that Harris wanted Kirkpatrick to refund fines for being towed.

After the firing, Kirkpatrick announced she wants a Department of Justice investigation. So things couldn’t be going much better.

To review: The police chief is fired, but we don’t know why. The Commission has some explaining to do. The Feds may do an investigation. The mayor is looking for a police chief — again. (10 chiefs in 17 years, according to the Chronicle.)

And good luck getting anyone to take this job.

The newsletter “Thoughts While Shaving,” comes out once a week and is free. Comments, suggestions and compliments are welcome. Criticism not so much. Contact me at: cwnevius@gmail.com. Twitter: @cwnevius