On March 7, voters in San Francisco will be asked to decide on an initiative proposal that would leave many welfare recipients with only about $1.50 a day in cash. The measure, purportedly designed to deal with the city's homeless population by forcing recipients to pay rent by issuing rent vouchers, threatens to make the situation worse. PNS correspondent Donal Brown taught journalism and English literature in California's public schools for 35 years.

San Francisco, eager to move its homeless off the streets, is considering a system that offers welfare recipients housing vouchers instead of cash. But those working on the front lines of the housing problem say that vouchers are no panacea -- and could make things worse.

The question goes before the voters on March 7 in the form of Proposition E. And while it may seem a relatively obscure issue in a relatively small city, if passed it could stimulate similar programs elsewhere.

Put on the ballot after an initiative campaign backed by downtown merchants and property owners, Prop E would cut public assistance so that a person who now receives $294 to $364 a month would get $44 to $53 in cash plus a voucher. Supporters claim it will force street addicts to use their assistance money for rent rather than drugs or alcohol.

People on public assistance say that Prop E would put them into a straitjacket. Larry Ferree, 58 and a veteran, is clean and sober but lives in a van near San Francisco City College where he is taking automotive technology courses. With housing vouchers, Ferree would be forced into housing he considers unsafe and unsanitary and lose the cash he uses for food. "All they want is to get rid of you," said Ferree.

Others fear being forced to live in shelters, and homeless advocates point out that those now in shared rooms would no longer be able to save money for other needs, making their lives even more difficult.

Backers of the measure argue that similar programs are working in other cities. However a survey of the cities mentioned does not support this.

Atlanta provides no general assistance to the homeless, only temporary aid to needy families. People must wait years for housing units -- and public housing units are being torn down. Atlanta's main approach is to arrest and imprison the homeless.

Seattle has emergency vouchers for motel unit but gives people on general assistance cards which may be good for food only. Some programs put cash in recipients' hands to pay for housing.

New York offers non-cash assistance to drug and alcohol abusers but also gives cash to many recipients. Under Mayor Giuliani, New York has also arrested the homeless in indiscriminate sweeps.

Here in San Francisco, workers in agencies providing services to the poor point out that nothing in Prop E touches on the root causes of homelessness -- lack of sufficient housing and of sufficient jobs that pay a living wage.

Indeed, they warn that Prop E may even put more people on the street.

The new plan can succeed only if landlords sign on -- and if they don't, the lid could be blown off rent control. Rebecca Graff of the Housing Rights Committee said that landlords of hotels where tenants on public assistance have been in place for three or four years may welcome Prop E as an opportunity to oust tenants and raise rents.

Landlords are free to opt out of the program on the grounds it will increase their costs. Those who so choose could evict all public assistance tenants.

Don Casper, chair of the San Francisco Republican Party which backs Prop E, said the new law would ensure that tenants are not evicted for nonpayment. He also said two-thirds of those on public assistance have some alcohol or drug problem and end up hospitalized, and so pay no rent and are then evicted.

Casper argued that landlords in undesirable neighborhoods with marginal buildings would welcome vouchers rather than going through the time-consuming and expensive process of eviction.

Prop E's authors talk of more than 3000 housing vacancies in San Francisco, but those closest to the market say there are no units available to people on the streets.

"They're only off by 3000," said Randy Shaw, an attorney for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Buildings have rooms free, he said, but they are not on the market. He said the 3000 figure included several buildings being renovated and even one hotel that only takes tourists.

Casper insists Prop E is an opportunity to break the cycle of substance abuse that puts people on the street. "Prop E is not a holistic solution. However, it is an important building block in building a solution."

David Cole, 56, whose clean-cut, preppy look belies his homeless situation, says the initiative is demoralizing. "Why," he wonders, "can't they find something uplifting instead of squeezing the money?"