San Francisco’s single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels have historically provided essential housing options for the city’s working-class and low-income residents.
However, many of these buildings are aging and in disrepair, leading to a critical juncture in housing policy.
A new piece of legislation, known as SB 21, is set to be reviewed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, and it could potentially alter the existing restrictions surrounding the demolition and redevelopment of SROs.
Proponents of SB 21 argue that the law is necessary to prevent a crisis similar to what occurred in Los Angeles’s Skid Row, where a nonprofit trust managing 29 SROs filed for bankruptcy largely due to overwhelming maintenance costs.
“Skid Row Housing Trust was not an exception,” stated Tiffany Spring, chief operating officer of the Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH).
“There are SRO buildings throughout California struggling to maintain operations and in dire need of redevelopment.”
The legislation, which must be signed by Newsom by October 12 to take effect, aims to facilitate the demolition and rebuilding of SROs in cities that have not met their affordable housing quotas, including San Francisco.
As the political landscape around housing in San Francisco heats up, with Mayor Daniel Lurie’s new housing plan set to increase density across the city, tensions are rising.
Higher home prices continue to be a pressing issue, while Lurie’s proposals also aim to create thousands of new subsidized housing units.
Yet, critics argue that such plans could lead to more demolitions, displacements, and evictions, particularly in a city renowned for its strong renter protections.
Under the provisions of SB 21, a project could potentially allow for a net loss of affordable units—up to 25 percent—when an SRO undergoes refurbishment or replacement.
Bethany Renfree, legislative director for Sen. Maria Durazo, emphasized that the current one-to-one replacement requirement is impractical given rising construction and maintenance costs.
This means that while the new buildings would still provide affordable housing, the units may be larger and therefore fewer.
This change raises alarms among tenant advocates, but surprisingly there has been minimal pushback against the bill.
It moved through the California legislature with ease, passing eight separate votes without a single dissenting vote, reflecting a rare consensus on the issue.
Single-room occupancy hotels present unique affordable housing options, typically consisting of small, single-room apartments often lacking suitable facilities for long-term residency.
The San Francisco Planning Department estimates approximately 19,000 SRO rooms are available across nearly 400 properties, with high turnover making it challenging to ascertain the exact number of current residents.
Roughly two-thirds of these are profit-driven enterprises, while the remainder is managed by nonprofits.
Monthly rents in SROs average around $890, significantly less than the citywide average for studio apartments, and they serve as critical housing for many residents at risk of homelessness.
These hotels are predominantly located in neighborhoods such as the Mission, Tenderloin, and Chinatown, catering to residents for whom a modest rent increase could result in a catastrophic situation.
Kevin Wong, co-director of the documentary Home Is a Hotel, illustrated this urgency by noting, “You’re talking about people for whom $100 can be the difference between making rent that month.”
A majority of SRO buildings have been standing for more than a century and were never designed as long-term residences.
Many of these structures face maintenance challenges worsened by high vacancy rates, with some buildings reportedly seeing 50 percent of their rooms unoccupied, according to the Planning Department.
A recent Pew Research report highlighted a nation-wide increase in homelessness corresponding to the decline of SROs as a housing option.
They noted that the demolition of San Francisco’s own Skid Row in the 1970s marked a significant loss in working-class housing.
In response to the housing crisis, San Francisco enacted the Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (HCO) in 1980, establishing strict guidelines for the conversion or demolition of SROs.
This ordinance aimed to protect the few affordable rental housing options available, particularly for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and low-income residents.
While recent attempts to convert SROs into standard hotels have met resistance, with the Planning Commission rejecting proposals to do so, SB 21 does not make such conversions easier.
Under the proposed legislation, tenant protections would remain intact, requiring any new units to be offered at similar affordability levels as those being replaced for at least 55 years.
Additionally, displaced tenants would receive the first option to return to new apartments, with legal assurance that they could not be evicted more than six months before demolition.
If renovations are delayed or cancelled, tenants’ rents would also remain capped.
This restructuring poses a considerable challenge for affordable housing developers who often lack the necessary capital to repair these aging buildings.
Sam Moss, executive director of Mission Housing—a nonprofit responsible for managing multiple SROs in San Francisco—acknowledged the complexity surrounding the management of older buildings.
He noted that the historical lack of adequate funding for maintenance has created a situation where many owners are unable to fulfill their commitments to residents.
“No one would ever accept putting anyone out on the street, but we need to address these necessary repairs,” Moss remarked, emphasizing the financial strain that renovation projects impose on SRO owners.
It remains uncertain whether SB 21 will lead to significant changes in how SROs are operated within the city or how effectively it will be received within the affordable housing and tenant advocacy communities.
Various attempts to contact local advocates for their opinions on the bill were largely met with silence, indicating a potential lack of awareness or engagement with the legislation.
Tan Chow from the Chinatown Community Development Center stated that their organization neither supports nor opposes the bill, reflecting a cautious stance on the matter.
While SCANPH’s Tiffany Spring confirmed that the authors of SB 21 consulted local housing organizations during its drafting process, the reaction remains tepid among local authorities and citizens.
Inquiries directed to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development have yielded limited responses, with officials stating they need more information before commenting.
Dan Sider of the San Francisco Planning Department referred to SB 21 as a “moving target,” highlighting the uncertainty surrounding its practicality and potential effects.
Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin district, expressed concerns over the unknowns related to the bill’s impact, reiterating the importance of SROs in the city’s housing landscape.
Despite the lack of attention given to SB 21, the potential of the legislation to alter the fate of nearly 20,000 affordable housing units for low-income San Franciscans cannot be understated.
As issues within these buildings remain paramount—ranging from chronic plumbing problems to significant health hazards—the legislative actions surrounding them are of critical importance.
Concerns about the state of SROs have been brought to light through numerous complaints received by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) regarding various properties managed by organizations like Mission Housing.
The Apollo Hotel, another SRO under Mission Housing’s management, has faced allegations of plumbing issues, cleanliness concerns, and other types of disrepair.
Residents have reported problems such as mold and discolored water coming from faucets, leading to calls for urgent repairs.
At the nearby Altamont Hotel, also managed by Mission Housing, tenants have expressed frustration over continuous elevator failures, leaked pipes, and inadequate shower facilities.
A staff member confirmed that the building employs only one maintenance worker to handle these ongoing issues.
Further complicating the situation, some complaints allege that certain issues stem from the negligence of tenants themselves, blurring the lines of accountability.
In contrast, tenants at the for-profit 16th Street Hotel report chronic issues such as black mold and inadequate security measures, raising questions about the level of care provided by commercial landlords.
Complaints filed at the Frances Hotel indicate residents are facing hazardous conditions, including malfunctioning fire alarms and exposed wiring, raising alarms about occupant safety.
Despite these reports, inspections by DBI have revealed mixed outcomes, with some violations being addressed while others were deemed unverifiable due to anonymous complaints.
Much like the SROs themselves, the state of housing for vulnerable populations is at a crossroads.
While some owners face operational challenges, not all SROs are in dismal conditions; nonetheless, many face mounting pressures as they age.
Without significant public investment and attention, the future of these essential living spaces remains precarious.
As advocates and policymakers continue to deliberate on the ramifications of SB 21, the pressing need for action is evident, reflecting the broader urgent issues within the city’s housing crisis.
image source from：thefrisc
