If San Francisco had enough housing for anyone who is currently homeless or at risk of it, homelessness could end overnight. That’s easier said than done, but it would be more cost effective than the status quo.
San Francisco recently secured a federal lot on 7th and Mission to build permanent supportive housing. The site will house 250 formerly homeless individuals, with 100 supportive units allocated to seniors. If San Francisco was able to offer enough housing, of the supportive variety and otherwise, it could potentially mean the end of homelessness.
“Permanent supportive housing” refers to housing that is staffed with mental health therapists, substance abuse counselors, and people who connect residents to employment opportunities. Upon entering, the individual in question is no longer considered homeless, but a tenant, and can stay indefinitely. According to the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, in June 2017, there were 7060 existing supportive units.
These supportive units are typically allocated to chronically homeless individuals. According to the 2017 San Francisco Homeless Point-in-Time Count and Survey, 7,499 individuals were homeless in San Francisco, including 513 youth. 2,138 (nearly 31%) of the 6,986 in the general count were chronically homeless; of this population, 2,112 were single individuals and 75% of them lacked shelter.
How much would it cost to provide housing for each chronically homeless individual? Not as much as it costs to not do it.
According to a June 2016 San Francisco Chronicle article by Kevin Fagan, “each chronically homeless person who isn't in supportive housing costs San Francisco taxpayers an average of $80,000 a year in jail expenses, ambulance rides and emergency care . . . But if the city can get all those people in supportive housing, the cost is $20,000 per person annually.”
A large part of that cost for supportive services is paid by federal and state governments through housing subsidies, disability, and other payments. In terms of construction, it could be funded by public bond money and using the savings to pay back investors.
Another way to look at it is that the June 2016 report from the Budget and Legislative Analyst’s office reported that San Francisco spent $20.6 million in 2015 enforcing quality of life laws alone. The SFPD accounts for approximately 90% of the costs due to quality of life incidents involving homeless individuals.
To name a few such laws in the San Francisco Police Code:
-
Art. 1, Sec. 22(a): No person shall willfully and substantially obstruct the free passage of any person or persons on any street, sidewalk, passageway or other public place.
-
Art. 2, Sec. 168(b): In the City and County of San Francisco, during the hours between seven (7:00) a.m. and eleven (11:00) p.m., it is unlawful to sit or lie down upon a public sidewalk, or any object placed upon a public sidewalk. (Added by Proposition L in 2010)
-
Art 2, Sec. 169(c): In the City and County of San Francisco, it is unlawful to place an Encampment upon a public sidewalk. This prohibition shall not apply to the placement of an Encampment on a public sidewalk pursuant to and in compliance with a street use permit or other applicable permit. (Added by Proposition Q in 2016)
This cost could be completely negated by simply providing homes for those who have nowhere else to go. In essence, quality of life laws are about protecting the quality of life for people who already have a socially acceptable residence, but not the people affected by the laws.
However, as with navigation centers, a lack of support from the community is a factor as well. As mentioned in a previous Bay City Beacon article about navigation centers, a community meeting exemplified how some homeowners in Mission Bay were less than pleased to hear of supportive housing planned in their neighborhood, citing concerns to city officials over their safety as well as injustice due to how much they paid to live there.
This overall sentiment is not exclusive to Mission Bay. These same types of concerns were voiced in Forest Hill when an affordable housing development for seniors was proposed that would house 20 to 30 percent of formerly homeless individuals. Some residents expressed anxiety about the possibility of “sex offenders living there” or “people with mental illness and drug addictions.”
These types of concerns could be alleviated by providing individualized care and the necessary assistance. However, this cannot happen overnight, and so The City cannot ignore alternative solutions that could provide more immediate relief.
Want policy-oriented, smart writing? Become a Supporting Member today, and receive our exclusive Beacon Briefings - a must-read, weekly summary of everything happening at City Hall. For just $7 a month, get an inside look at San Francisco politics!
