A Supervisor had an innovative idea for the homeless. It didn't even get a Board vote

It's popular in the city, but not in City Hall

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman has done the impossible.

Even for San Francisco.

Mandelman has come up with an innovative plan to create “safe sleeping spots” for the unhoused San Franciscans who are living in tents on the sidewalk. The locations would be fenced and safe and, like the sites that are currently in operation, would have toilets, showers and electricity.

Best of all, it could be set up in a matter of months, not years in the future. The homeless get a free location and tent cities leave the neighborhood sidewalks. Mandelman calls it “A Place for All.”

It seems like a win-win.

And everybody hates it.

Well, not everybody, but as Mandelman said in an op-ed in The Examiner “predictably my proposal is drawing fire from right and left alike.”

Listening to last week’s hearing on the proposal in the Budget and Finance Committee was more depressing than “Nomadland.” Talk about a tale of two cities.

If you only listened to the first part of the public comment, and you were unfamiliar with San Francisco politics, you’d think Mandelman’s bill was both popular and necessary.

These hearings on homelessness have a pattern. Public comment is generally dominated by progressive advocates for the homeless.

But in this case Mandelman began by reading a long list of 17 local neighborhood and business organizations that are in support. And then there were residents, small business owners and advocates from organizations like Rescue SF. It might not have been a 50-50 split, but 60-40 is a reasonable estimate. At least one City Hall vet said it was an unprecedented turnout.

In a Tweet, Mandelman thanked “hundreds” of supporters who reached out and said he felt the proposal “aligns with the values and sensibilities of a majority of San Franciscans.” And I’ll bet it does.

In fact, in a shocker, it appears even the homeless prefer it. In a survey conducted last September by the Coalition on Homelessness (!) found that 58 percent of those unhoused individuals would prefer a “a legal free campsite,” with amenities. Ten percent said they might use it, compared to only 32 percent who said they would not.

Then we got to those opposed. I think it is fair to say many, if not most of them said they had a connection to the Coalition on Homelessness. Generally, they were outraged.

Anyone supporting the measure is “entitled and bigoted.” The idea was “insane.” Mandelman was putting people in “outdoor cages.” The plan was just “pacifying people who are upset with seeing the reality.”

(Even Mandelman couldn’t let that on pass. The idea that residents opposed to tents on their sidewalks were just squeamish was “gaslighting,” he said. Their concerns are real.)

Another critic said, “I feel we should continue going in the direction we are going.”

Which, Mandelman said at the hearing, was his point.

“We spend more and more money on the problem every year,” he said. “We create more and more resources. And it just feels endless. We can’t keep doing more of what we have been doing and expecting different results.”

Signing up for a subscription is simple. Just click the button. Also, if you act now, it is free. (Also if you don’t act now.)

But that’s where we are. Mandelman’s proposal didn’t make it out of committee. (It would be interesting to see how it would fare in a city-wide election.)

In response, there were lots of promises about a big, new homelessness initiative with the $200 million a year that was provided by Marc Benioff's Prop C in 2018.

It’s going to be huge, they say. Unhoused people will be put in downtown hotel rooms. The city may even buy whole hotels. It’s going to house thousands, they say, all on the way to “end homelessness.”

This just in. We aren’t going to end homelessness. Look around. It isn’t just San Francisco, it is Seattle, Los Angeles and Austin. This is a country in crisis and that is reflected in those who are so in need they can not shelter themselves.

I just don’t think anyone can walk past a tent on a street corner and say that it is more compassionate to continue to do nothing.

The problem with this discussion is that it is based on a false equivalence. The question is framed as: Is it better for someone to live in an apartment in a hotel or in a tent in a city-run parking lot? Obviously, the hotel is better.

But the question really is: Is it better to live on a neighborhood sidewalk with no toilet, showers or electricity, or in a safe sleeping spot with all those amenities?

Several of those against the idea asked if proponents had been to one of the sites.

I have. I’ve been to the one at United Nations Plaza. It looked tidy and well laid out. There was a fence around the site (that’s where the cage idea came from) and security, but residents are free to come and go.

There has been a lot of complaining and criticism of the cost. One report said the cost of a tent for a year was over $61,000.

We having a special on sharing the newsletter. You can do it here with just one click. It’s a kinda two-for-one sorta thing.

Mandelman said he thought the cost could be brought down considerably. But also, you’re putting in a lot of extras in running water, power and security. That costs something.

Still, moderates see it as way too expensive. Another free lunch for the homeless. The progressives are against it because it will be “sucking up a lot of money” from Prop C and other revenue sources — particularly when the city is facing a budget shortfall.

But wait until you see it, they say. The new multi-million-dollar plan will redefine the homeless crisis in San Francisco.

Some day.

We will see if that happens. As Mandelman said, if that can be done, he’s all for it.

“If we can do it with housing over the next two years,” he said, “let’s do it that way.”

But if, like so many grand plans, it takes years to roll out and we still find there is a crisis of unhoused people living in squalor on the streets, wouldn’t you think the city would like to try A Place for All?

Naw, San Francisco said. We’re good. We’ll just keep doing what we’ve been doing.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Suggestions and compliments gladly accepted. Criticism, not so much. Twitter: @cwnevius