After watching this incredibly gut wrenching report on the homeless situation in San Francisco (which is unlikely to surprise anyone who lives here), I posting it on line and a friend asked how I would solve the homeless problem. I’ve thought about this a lot over the past many years as I work half a block from 6th and Mission in an area many people I speak with wouldn’t consider going through, especially when I started the school in 2002, which caused some issues with registration. After the Federal Building was put in at 7th and Mission and they did some cleanup of the mid Market area, it did improve somewhat, although you can still see people regularly on the street shooting up, peeing in a corner, defecating, smoking crack or going about living in the homeless encampments that dot the alleys nearby. This area is a few blocks from the well known drug center on the other side of Market Street known as the Tenderloin referenced in the video above.
Here are some thoughts on what could help the situation from my perspective. Generally speaking, if we’re committed to spending funds to fix this problem as our budget increases over the last decades would indicate, I suggest a two prong approach that focuses on implementing more consequences for those on the streets to disincentivize them from being there while offering real and sustainable solutions to help change their situation and get them back on their feet through budget reallocations.
Implement consequence
- Update Prop 47: Proposition 47 implemented three broad changes to felony sentencing laws. First, it reclassified certain theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Second, it authorizes defendants currently serving sentences for felony offenses that would have qualified as misdemeanors under the proposition to petition courts for resentencing under the new misdemeanor provisions. Third, it authorizes defendants who have completed their sentences for felony convictions that would have qualified as misdemeanors under the proposition to apply to reclassify those convictions to misdemeanors. The consequences of the proposition passing, unsurprisingly, has led to a spike in property crime in SF and while this report claims that recidivism has been reduced, it’s hard to be certain the cause when one considers people are no longer being charged with crimes that formerly were felonies. In fact, I posit police are more lax on the misdemeanors than they were when the crimes were felonies and thus reduced enforcement is partly (perhaps mostly) to credit for reduced recidivism. Smash and grabs have become more frequent because there’s not much incentive to pursue such crimes to begin with and less so now that the penalties are reduced, especially when one considers running a trial for a shoplifting crime under $1000 costs more than the value of what’s stolen. The burden from these crimes costs citizens through increased insurance, lower quality of life, additional glass on the street (and subsequent cleanup), and a reduction in safety for those who both live in and visit the city. If Proposition 47 was updated such that drug crimes were legalized in certain places in the city and penalized in other areas when people did it in public, and the penalties were meaningful and significant, I believe that would help. This essentially is proposing a drug focused red light district to confine the crime to a smaller area which assists with enforcement while also increasing the quality of life for those outside that area.
- Eliminate the needle exchange program: One attractive factor for drug addicts who are homeless to live in San Francisco, which I posit is part of what brings them to the city from other places, are so called “harm reduction” programs. While it may be true that harm is reduce for IV drug users, out of the roughly 883,000 residents, about 22,000 – 24,500 of them are IV drug users which outnumbers the quantity of high school students in the city. That means the needle exchange program, which distributes nearly 4.5 million needles annually, is directly serving less than 3% of the population. If the increase in needles on the street didn’t represent a real and present biohazard and danger, I wouldn’t necessarily make this suggestion, but the reality is, because 40% of the needles distributed annually are not exchanged through the so called “needle exchange program” many of those needles can be found on the street. It’s not just the needles from the exchange program that are at issue. Sharps containers are available to dispose of needles in various places around the city yet these containers are regularly pulled down, ripped open and the contents are left on the street, presenting a hazard to all citizens and visitors in the city in the process, a situation so dire it’s worthy of reporting at the national level. (Not that the poop problem is less dire: it’s been reported on internationally and is co-mingled with the homelessness and drug issues on the streets.)[wpvideo 5UJlG9LM]This creates a less than safe environment for adults not to mention an unsafe environment in which to raise especially young children. While the strewn about needles are perhaps concentrated more in urban areas of the city like SOMA, downtown near shelters, and the Tenderloin, BART stations are littered with needles also which impacts tourism as well as residents. One city official noted how this problem will “tarnish” the reputation of San Francisco, although as a resident, I’m fairly convinced it already has. I took the video above out front of the Federal Building on 7th Street near Mission in February 2020. This is a main road, not an alley, and it is on Federal property complete with guards and cameras. Despite the “security measures” I’ve regularly witnessed people shooting up, having sex, and other activities generally associated with lower safety, higher crime, and reduced quality of life (aka, degeneracy). Clients regularly express concern walking through this area to attend classes at one of the studios I use because strung out drug users are a regular feature on the street and can be uncomfortable, especially for those unaccustomed to moving through crowds who use. In the end, this pile of bio-hazardous needles is not safe for any citizens, including those IV users for whom the program intends to reduce harm. At what point does it make sense to consider the needs of the many rather than the less than 3% who may or may not benefit from these harm reduction programs?
- Eliminate the narcan program: Narcan is used for opiod overdoses to counter the effects of the drug when a user has done too much. I know a former addict who overdosed three times in SF and they gave her narcan each time, after which the cops walked away and left her there. I object to this for two reasons. First, to give someone medicine while they are unconscious and/or not fully present violates their body sovereignty as they can not consent to the medicine being injected in their body. For all we know, that person was trying to kill themselves and go out on a high note — literally. I do not think it is anyone else’s right to make that choice for someone else barring explicit positions of conservatorship which certainly isn’t the case with a cop and an OD on the street. My second objection is that offering narcan in that situation with no consequences is enabling, not empowering. Sure, the person may live on, but how is that helpful? If someone is at the point where they are willing to overdose once, as with my friend, why would they stop using knowing they could be saved by narcan again. If we always do what we’ve always done we’ll always get what we’ve always gotten. Thus, if we repeatedly narcan someone on the street without consequence or addiction support after the fact, what incentive do they have to change their behaviors and do something different? (Side note: it wasn’t until my friend moved to a zero tolerance state where they 5150’d her in response to her first OD that she made the changes necessary to overcome her addiction. She is a firm believer that the cops in SF enabled her and could have helped her had there been consequences.)
Implement Sustainable Solutions that Make a Real Difference
Build Tiny Homes
I’ve been interacting with my local cohort of homeless folks for years since my business is near an encampment. Like people who are housed, they seem to have a community and want one, just like anyone else might. If we’d like to help them create sustainable change and strengthen their community, it seems to me redirecting the funds we currently use toward the homeless could be helpful.
There’s an estimated 17,600 homeless people on the streets of SF. In 2019-2020, the budget proposal for homeless services hit $364,000,000. That works out to about $20,500 per person.
In 2020, tiny homes can be built for about $8,000; Amazon sells different units for under $10,000 including this 113 square foot space for $5,300 and this 209 square foot tiny home for $9650. If all 17,600 were allocated a tiny home — let’s be generous and say at $10,000 per home — the total cost would be something close to $176,000,000 which is just under half the amount of the city budget. Not only that, the funds would be invested in fixed assets that would be reusable over time, thus increasing the return on investment. Tiny home encampments could be created on city land under highways where encampments are now found which would in and of itself offer some dignity to the homeless and a real opportunity for them to get off the streets and create a healthier, safer environment for themselves. On top of that, it would move the homeless population out of tourist areas and remove encampments from sidewalks which would offer a tremendous improvement in the quality of life for the other citizens and tourists moving through the city.
Buy Port-o-potties and Showers
It makes sense that some additional funding would then be allocated to create communal bathrooms in the tiny homes encampments from the remaining $188,000,000 of the allocated budget.
If Burning Man can create a city that accommodates 80,000 people for a week with porta potties, surely we can accommodate less than 18,000 people with them. If the city bought porta potties, that could alleviate this problem. They rent for about $400/month which means a bulk purchase would likely reduce the price. Prices vary on the internet for purchase, although $1000 seems well within range. One restroom can accommodate 10 workers for 40 hours. For ease of estimate, let’s say 2 units can accommodate 20 people for 3 days which is 72 hours, not 80. That means for 17,600 people at 20 people per unit, the city would need to purchase 880 units and service the units just over 1x a week. At $1000 per unit, that’s a mere $880,000 for the city to own them. Servicing would be an additional fee.
Let’s also assume the city would provide some shower facilities for these encampments. One service quotes rentals starting at $2500 per month for a 3 unit trailer. Again, it would be cheaper if the city purchased or possibly even built their own units, but let’s start with these non discounted numbers. A 3 stall unit accommodates 400 people which means 44 units would be required. At $2500/month x 44 units x 12 months that’s $1,320,000 for rental; again, likely less for purchase or build.
So far there’s a huge surplus in the budget of something over $185,000,000. Accounting for additional factors like cleaning the units, electricity, water, and administration, let’s assume we’re left with $170,000,000 in the budget.
Employ the homeless
To help get folks back on their feet and integrated into a productive lifestyle, it makes sense to give them an opportunity to regain their dignity, sense of pride, and rebuild their self efficacy by giving them work opportunities. First, step is to have them each get invested in the tiny home they will be using by having them work on building their new home. This would help reduce some expenses while giving them a clear opportunity to actively participate in making a change in their life by helping create a shelter for themselves.
After the houses are constructed in these encampments, jobs would be necessary to maintain the space including upkeep in the bathrooms and cleaning the area around the encampments. If police budget cuts are on the menu, perhaps additional positions supporting the administration and safety in the encampments — like a resident assistant in a college dorm — could be part of the rotating responsibilities of encampment inhabitants. To encourage participation rather than freeloading, dwellers could be responsible for a certain number of shifts per month as a provision of them keeping their home which generates more investment in the community around them, thus raising the quality of life while increasing participant’s self esteem.
The reality is employing this many people would exceed the remaining budget since minimum wage in SF is $15.59 per hour x 40 hours per week x 50 weeks per year = $31,180 per person. With the remaining $170,000,000, only 5,452 people could be employed at minimum wage.
Instead of employing a smaller number at a higher wage, it makes more sense to subsidize their lives for a specific period of time based on a set of conditions and criteria that need to be met with something like an EDD stipend. Since housing is already covered as well as the water utilities associated with it, it seems reasonable that folks would need less funds to get by to cover the essentials of groceries, food, toiletries and clothing. If the city, instead of offering minimum wage jobs, allocated the minimum amount for unemployment (less federal taxes) of $150 per week per tiny home resident, that works out to $7,800 per person which would cover 21,794 people, a number higher than the homeless population. Providing minimum EDD benefits for the homeless population of 17,600 would equal $137,280,000 leaving almost $33,000,000 left for administration, health care, educational and job placement services helping residents develop the skills necessary to find employment capable of supporting their transition from the tiny home encampment to low income housing.
Surely this isn’t a complete answer because:
- There are bound to be people who don’t want to participate in a program like this for whatever reason
- The administration process and requirements would also need serious consideration in terms of both the criteria and enforcement of it
- The finer points of shifting residents from tiny housing to low income housing requires deeper analysis
The good news is starting in year two, budget wouldn’t need to be allocated to building new tiny homes which means $176,000,000 annually from then on could be used toward education, training services, and/or support to help the residents transition into low income housing units elsewhere in the city and outside the tiny home encampments.
As is always the case when solutions are implemented, next level problems will arise and while there’s sure to be many things that weren’t factored in this rough outline, this is a better starting point than anything I’ve seen implemented thus far in my 26 years in San Francisco to address a problem that keeps getting worse, not better, despite an ever increasing budget.