A renewed push for homeless services in San Francisco is gaining traction, with a proposal aimed at distributing resources more equitably across the city’s supervisorial districts.
After facing rejection six years ago, a geographic equity law is back on the table.
This latest proposal aims to ease the overconcentration of shelters and services in neighborhoods like the Tenderloin, South of Market, Mission, and Bayview.
Introduced in April, the law mandates that each supervisorial district must open at least one facility by June 30, 2026.
The type of facilities required could include overnight shelters, transitional housing, clinics, and programs that offer addiction treatment and mental health care.
Additionally, the bill proposes a 1,000-foot buffer between new facilities, making it more challenging to establish additional services in areas that are already heavily serviced.
Sup. Bilal Mahmood, representing the Tenderloin and other central neighborhoods, is the primary sponsor of the bill.
Mahmood references a March resolution passed unanimously, which encouraged the mayor to explore fair distribution of new homeless shelters across all districts.
Among the supervisors supporting the bill are Shamann Walton, Matt Dorsey, Jackie Fielder, Myrna Melgar, and Danny Sauter.
Notably, Melgar is the only sponsor whose district currently lacks any services, although District 7 has struggled for years to assist or relocate individuals living in RVs near Lake Merced.
Despite this backing, six sponsors are not enough to counter a potential veto from Mayor Lurie, as the bill requires eight votes to pass.
Reports have surfaced indicating that Lurie’s team has been attempting to dilute the bill behind the scenes.
There exists a notable division in perspectives among supervisors about the proposed legislation.
While many argue for better distribution of homeless services, others fear the political fallout from making such policy changes.
Del Seymour, a local advocate from the Tenderloin, emphasizes that the city’s homeless population is dispersed throughout all districts.
However, he warns that pushback from some neighborhoods, especially those on the west side, could complicate the situation.
Seymour expresses concerns about the feasibility of the bill due to anticipated political backlash, underscoring that Lurie’s resistance is understandable because of his need for support from the west side.
The political landscape surrounding this issue is further complicated by divisions that transcend simple geographic lines.
In 2019, a similar bill faced similar challenges, with the dynamics shifting depending on where the services were concentrated.
At that time, support was more prevalent among supervisors whose districts bore the brunt of hosting homeless services, while those without such services were less inclined to support the legislation.
Five board members who have not endorsed the current bill include Rafael Mandelman, Steven Sherrill, Chyanne Chen, Connie Chan, and Joel Engardio.
Only Mandelman and Sherrill provided responses when approached for their opinions on the matter.
Engardio faces a potential recall election, which may impact his stance on the bill, given public sentiments regarding his prior actions.
Mandelman acknowledges the issue addressed by the bill as a “very real problem,” but raises concerns related to the specific locations and funding for new facilities.
He notes that finding appropriate locations for behavioral health or homeless facilities is often challenging, and he questions whether the bill’s additional requirements would adequately address this issue.
Mandelman advocates for a less prescriptive ordinance that would more directly focus on limiting sites in overburdened neighborhoods rather than enforcing a blanket category of services across all districts.
Meanwhile, Sherrill mentions he is in the “information-gathering stage” and has yet to take a firm stance on the proposal.
Responses from other non-responding board members hint at their past willingness to support homeless services in their constituencies.
Chyanne Chen, who won her board seat in the last election, has called for increased mental health treatment beds but did not specify locations in her campaign.
Engardio similarly supported increased mental health treatment and housing during his 2022 campaign, even amidst local opposition.
Connie Chan has publicly opposed the Mahmood bill, arguing that it would restrict Lurie’s ability to add services flexibly.
Chan also praised Lurie’s recent powers from the “Fentanyl State of Emergency” bill that allows him to act more swiftly in opening new facilities.
The mayor’s office has not provided any comment on the current discussions.
Despite the potential challenges ahead, Mahmood remains optimistic about the bill’s proposed role in addressing the city’s homeless crisis.
He insists that facilities would be designed to be sensitive to the local neighborhoods’ needs.
In response to Mandelman’s concerns regarding budgeting, Mahmood emphasizes that building shelters across different areas of the city does not differ significantly in cost.
He points out that the homeless population isn’t uniformly distributed and that providing services closer to where people live would help alleviate travel burdens, especially for those in need of immediate assistance.
Nevertheless, amendments proposed by Lurie’s team might water down the bill’s impact, as they suggest that the city should merely “endeavor” to meet the requirement of one new facility in each district.
Mahmood acknowledges that the amendments are still in draft form and that he is in discussions with the mayor regarding the bill’s future.
Regardless of whether the bill faces modifications or cannot survive a potential veto, its current support indicates a significant shift in San Francisco’s approach to homelessness, according to spokesperson Allbee.
The bill’s first public hearing is set for July 16 in the Budget and Finance Committee.
Out of the three committee members, only Dorsey has publicly supported the bill thus far.
However, with Engardio facing a recall election due to his support for the Great Highway closure, the bill’s progression may encounter further obstacles as it heads towards a full board vote.
image source from：https://thefrisc.com/push-for-homeless-shelters-services-in-every-sf-district-runs-into-politics/
