On Tuesday, July 15, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors plans to cast a crucial vote regarding Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to shift funds from permanent supportive housing to bolster the city’s temporary shelter capacity. This comes amidst a backdrop of ongoing budget discussions and a significant public rally aimed at opposing the proposal.
District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder, along with housing advocates and individuals who have benefited from permanent supportive housing, demonstrated on the steps of City Hall, urging fellow board members to reject the mayor’s plan.
The heart of the controversy lies in Lurie’s intentions for Proposition C, a 2018 initiative designed to tax businesses with gross receipts exceeding $50 million. The measure allocates these funds into specific categories of homeless services, particularly earmarking 50 percent for permanent supportive housing, 25 percent for mental health services, 15 percent for homelessness prevention, and 10 percent at most for hygiene and temporary shelters.
According to the current rules, any reallocation of these funds requires a supermajority vote from the supervisors.
However, Mayor Lurie is aiming to bypass this requirement by reallocating around $35 million from permanent housing initiatives to enhance temporary shelter options throughout the city. Under his proposal, the amount designated for temporary shelters could potentially rise from approximately $30 million to $65 million, given that the total projected revenue from Proposition C for the upcoming fiscal year is estimated at $303 million.
Critics of the mayor’s plan argue that diverting funds from permanent supportive housing contributes to a worsening cycle of homelessness. A March report from the San Francisco Controller’s Office highlighted that only 13 percent of individuals who left city shelters in 2024 managed to secure permanent housing, primarily due to a lack of availability.
An emotional perspective was shared by Sunbear Jackson, a former homeless individual, who recounted his decade-long struggle with homelessness. He emphasized the significance of stable housing, which he attributed to his recovery from addiction and his improved relationship with his son.
Initially, Mayor Lurie sought an even larger sum of $89 million, but this figure was negotiated down to the current $35 million, which recently received unanimous approval from the Budget and Appropriations Committee.
The proposal includes a contentious Section 4, which aims to eliminate the existing supermajority requirement for future allocation changes, reducing the threshold to a simple majority vote of 6-5 among the 11 supervisors. This section has faced significant backlash, with District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton being the sole dissenting voice in the budget committee.
While some adjustments to the proposal have been made, including that changes affecting amounts over $19 million would still require a supermajority, critics fear that this could set a troubling precedent for future fund reallocations. They warn such changes would undermine the voter mandate that sanctioned Proposition C in 2018, which received robust support from 61 percent of San Francisco’s electorate.
The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office has also raised concerns, sending a memo in June that warned a modification to Section 4 might violate the intent of the original Proposition C and expose the city to potential legal challenges.
Despite these concerns, vocal opposition to the plan has been limited largely to Supervisors Fielder and Walton, who have actively campaigned against the proposed changes.
On a broader scale, the mayor controls approximately 15 percent of the city’s $15.9 billion budget; however, the supervisors oversee a relatively small sliver, about $14.4 million, or 0.1 percent.
Historically, attempts to dip into Proposition C funds have occurred, evidenced by former Mayor London Breed’s initiatives in 2023 to divert funds drawn from interest accrued from Prop. C, which she sought for temporary shelter beds. Nonetheless, the current proposal marks the first instance in which a mayor has sought to redirect funds from already appropriated revenue, while also pushing for less stringent vote requirements.
Housing advocates argue that approving Lurie’s proposal could make it easier in the future for both the mayor and the Board of Supervisors to divert funds from permanent supportive housing, essentially undermining the principles established by voters.
At the rally, Supervisor Fielder expressed her frustration, asserting that changing the rules governing Proposition C was a dangerous step that would be challenging to reverse.
Echoing this sentiment, former District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston highlighted that the consequences of such a change could reshape legislative decisions for years or even decades to come.
As the board approaches the pivotal vote on Tuesday, the outcome remains clouded in uncertainty. The stakes are high, with advocates fearing for the future of permanent supportive housing in a city grappling with homelessness.
image source from：missionlocal
