San Francisco’s persistent issues with homelessness and drug addiction stem more from a crisis of political will than a lack of resources or strategic planning, asserts former San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston in a recent blog post titled “Why San Francisco Doesn’t Solve Its Homelessness & Drug Problems.”
Preston contends that city leaders have intentionally favored temporary fixes and punitive measures over substantial solutions, perpetuating a cycle of displacement rather than providing meaningful assistance to those in need.
He introduces the term “punishment industrial complex” to describe what he views as a misguided approach that prioritizes public comfort and political optics over effective problem-solving.
According to Preston, for politicians, demonstrating action through visible measures like street sweeps provides a sense of accomplishment without addressing the underlying issues.
These sweeps, he argues, result in unhoused individuals being moved around the city rather than being connected to essential services or shelter, all in an effort to appease constituents’ concerns and create an illusion of progress.
In discussing the events at Jefferson Square earlier this year, Preston highlights how a sudden influx of displaced individuals into the park created a chaotic situation, leading to police intervention and mass arrests.
Though the arrests were portrayed by the media as a victory for public order, he emphasizes that they did not lead to any substantial resolutions for those affected.
Instead, the destabilization caused by these actions further jeopardized the well-being of individuals struggling with addiction and housing insecurity, increasing the likelihood of traumatic experiences and prolonged homelessness.
The police’s admission during a recent Board of Supervisors hearing—that success in addressing homelessness would inherently mean displacement—undercuts claims about the effectiveness of current strategies.
During his tenure, Preston reflects on how the mission of street outreach teams shifted from connecting individuals with needed care and housing to focusing primarily on maintaining what is described as “quality of life” for housed residents.
This shift emphasizes the comfort of those who already have housing rather than a commitment to helping those in dire situations.
Preston points out a significant retreat by the Department of Public Health from previous commitments to overdose prevention and harm reduction, thus sidelining critical issues affecting marginalized populations.
This redirection in mission is not accidental; instead, it characterizes a deliberate political choice to manage public perception rather than to effectively combat a humanitarian crisis.
As Preston puts it, the narrative has shifted away from resolving human suffering to merely controlling what is perceived as a public nuisance.
He warns that a well-funded, coordinated, and increasingly reactionary political environment supports this approach, facilitating a framework that stigmatizes poverty while promoting conservative “law and order” ideologies.
This narrative redefines public disorder not as a complex social challenge but as an issue to be visually managed, prioritizing the concerns of housed residents over the struggles of those unsheltered.
Lincoln Mitchell, a political scientist, recently echoed this sentiment, indicating that addressing perceptions of disorder seems to take precedence over genuine efforts to assist the homeless and those grappling with substance abuse.
Preston critiques the political culture that has developed around this reality, highlighting how it prioritizes discomfort felt by housed citizens over the genuine challenges faced by the homeless population.
He urges a critical reevaluation of priorities, suggesting that rather than focusing on surface issues like tents or public urination, leaders should address the deeper traumas associated with homelessness and addiction.
To enact real change, Preston asserts, policymakers must focus on those suffering, instead of merely catering to the needs of the housed majority.
However, he believes that such a fundamental shift is unlikely under current city leadership, particularly given that those most in need often lack the political power to influence policy decisions that affect their lives.
Preston argues that this gap represents a significant political failure and reinforces the cycle of ineffective response to homelessness and drug addiction.
Without champions for real solutions – solutions that prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable San Franciscans – the city is destined to repeat hollow responses while failing to make meaningful progress toward addressing these critical issues.
In conclusion, Preston warns that without a concerted effort to pivot toward effective strategies that truly serve the unhoused and addicted, San Francisco will remain trapped in a cycle of false promises aimed at creating the illusion of action rather than enacting substantive change.
image source from：https://davisvanguard.org/2025/06/sf-homelessness-political-will-crisis/
