Beatriz Vasquez and her family fled the violence and extortion in Peru in 2023, seeking safety and stability in the United States. After weeks of transitioning between hotels in the Bay Area, they found themselves at a family shelter in San Francisco, intended to be a temporary stop. Almost two years later, they are still in the shelter, grappling with a housing crisis that leaves them feeling trapped.
In San Francisco, the number of homeless families has surged dramatically, more than doubling from 205 in 2022 to 437 in 2024, according to the latest point-in-time count. Families who arrive, like that of the Vasquezes, face a daunting and complicated shelter and housing system that advocates say has been made more challenging by recent policy changes in City Hall. The newly approved budget, despite various compromises, still lacks the necessary funding to successfully transition enough families into permanent housing.
In late December 2024, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) reinstated a 90-day limit on shelter stays for families, a measure intended to ensure a systemic flow in an already strained shelter environment. Although HSH has allowed families to request extensions, only one family has had to leave their shelter since the new limit was imposed, which illustrates the high demand for temporary housing.
At the same time, the city has intensified its crackdown on vehicular living, implementing a two-hour parking limit on RVs, camp trailers, house cars, and mobile homes. Many of the residents affected by this ordinance are Spanish-speaking families, who, like the Vasquez family, are navigating a precarious existence while seeking stability.
In June 2024, the Board of Supervisors made a controversial decision to reallocate $34 million in funds earmarked for housing and services aimed at homeless youth and families toward expanding adult shelter facilities. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman remarked that this decision was a product of negotiations with Mayor Daniel Lurie, as they sought to address the growing homelessness crisis amidst significant pressures.
The mayor’s initial budget plan aimed to reassign nearly $90 million from a voter-approved tax intended for homeless services, underlining the pressing challenge posed by rising homelessness as a result of the fentanyl crisis and other socioeconomic factors. Yet there is a growing debate over whether the funds should be funneled into expanding temporary shelters or focused on creating permanent homes, a more resource-intensive but ultimately more sustainable solution.
Critics argue that focusing too heavily on temporary solutions neglects the critical need for permanent housing solutions. Lurie has prioritized getting people off the streets, but his proposed strategy has been met with resistance from advocacy groups, including the Coalition on Homelessness, which argues that the plan to shift Prop C funds goes against voter intentions when they approved the measure in 2018.
During recent budget negotiations, the Board of Supervisors attempted to strike a balance by increasing the number of new vouchers for short-term apartment rentals for families and youth, a total of 130 vouchers were allocated alongside 100 for youth homelessness prevention. This new proposal includes incentives aimed at preventing homelessness while maintaining limited shelter resources — a ratio that still falls short of what advocates believe is necessary.
The new budget also plans to increase shelter capacity by adding just 124 new beds instead of the 630 that the mayor initially proposed. Supporters, such as Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, view the addition of rapid rehousing vouchers as a positive step but acknowledge that the city’s approach still requires significant adjustment to better address family homelessness.
Proposals from the Coalition on Homelessness and Faith in Action have emerged, advocating for permanent family housing over temporary shelter, with a projected cost of $66.5 million. Their approach argues that providing families with permanent housing averages significantly less than operating shelters, presenting a clear economic rationale alongside the humane argument for stable housing solutions.
The advocates propose a mix of funding solutions to achieve their goals, including subsidies and vouchers to expand available housing options across San Francisco. However, the implementation remains complicated; adding suitable units to existing affordable housing would require comprehensive planning and collaboration with housing developers and city officials.
San Francisco has approximately 60,000 vacant housing units, yet most are not accessible for rapid rehousing solutions. While data suggests there are many empty units, actual availability is often more restrictive, highlighting the complexities of the housing market and ownership issues.
The experiences of the Vasquez family underscore these challenges. Their attempt to settle in various locations has frequently been thwarted by restrictive policies, bureaucratic hurdles, and resource limitations. These obstacles reveal a broader systemic issue within the shelter system that advocates and families have identified repeatedly.
In their first attempt to find shelter in San Mateo, the Vasquez family faced barriers that nearly derailed their path to stability. Although advocacy helped rescind a restrictive policy, they were ultimately turned away from multiple shelters due to a points-based eligibility system that misjudged their vulnerability.
On multiple occasions, they encountered shelters that were completely full, leading to further delays in their search for housing. The Vasquez family finally secured a temporary solution with a hotel voucher, ultimately being placed in Hamilton Families Shelter in September 2023. This extended stay reflects a troubling trend of families lingering in temporary housing due to insufficient affordable options available.
Despite being approved for affordable housing twice, the family found rent pricing consistently beyond their financial reach. In their latest experience, the proposed rent was $2,500 a month, just slightly below the income earned by Beatriz’s husband, making it impossible for them to afford. This inconsistent eligibility only adds to the frustration and confusion surrounding the shelter and housing system.
Reams of red tape can often entrap families like the Vasquezes in limbo, complicating the path to stability even further. Commissioner Christin Evans of the Homelessness Oversight Commission noted the alarming situation of families remaining in shelters for years without any progress toward permanent housing.
Additionally, difficulties have escalated as new regulations targeting street living emerge. Among these was a new plan introduced by the mayor to further restrict the use of RVs for living, a move that shelters have described as insufficient unless concurrent safe alternatives are provided.
Recent developments in these plans come alongside steadier pressures from federal immigration agencies, which instill fear in immigrant families already feeling vulnerable. Beatriz disclosed the profound emotional impact this uncertainty creates, sharing that, despite their lifelong dedication to work and contributing to society, they find themselves caught in a system that seems unwilling to help.
For the Vasquez family, securing a stable and affordable home remains their ultimate goal. They wish for a little assistance to help them open the door, emphasizing their willingness to contribute to society while navigating a convoluted housing landscape.
As organizations and advocates continue to press for systemic changes, the challenges remain palpable for families striving for stability. Addressing the needs of the growing homeless population in San Francisco will require multifaceted strategies and a commitment to long-term solutions that prioritize people over numbers.
image source from：thefrisc
