Pettye

Pettye v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 233·12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 798
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 25, 2004A103129California5,083 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sepulveda, J.

On November 5, 2002, the San Francisco voters passed Proposition N, the “Care Not Cash” initiative which, among other things, amended the city’s general assistance (G.A.) standards of aid and care for homeless indigents. Proposition N requires that the City replace the bulk of outright cash grants to homeless recipients with in-kind benefits for housing, utilities and meals, to the extent such services are available.

Two San Francisco residents—a G.A. recipient and a taxpayer—challenged these provisions. However the challengers did not attack the substance of the “Care Not Cash” initiative. Rather, they successfully asserted that under Welfare and Institutions Code section 17001, only the board of supervisors—not the voters—could enact the amendments. Adhering to our duty to jealously guard the prerogative of initiative, we liberally constme that power, concluding that section 17001 does not express a “clear” or “definite” intent to restrict that right and therefore the presumption favoring its exercise has not been overcome. (See DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 775-776 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699 , 889 P.2d 1019 ] (DeVita).) Accordingly, we reverse the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.