And so, once again, San Francisco finds itself on the ragged edge of something big and important.
We’ll flesh this out in a bit, but the essential takeaway is that — as Tenderloin advocate Randy Shaw argues in Beyond the Chron — pending other legal action, the city can remove tent encampments from the streets and sidewalks. If occupants are offered a place to sleep, a shelter or housing, and decline to take it, they can be told to move.
It could be a really big deal.
At the very least, it could tamp down what we’ve come to know as the “New York City doom loop.”
This is the premise that at least once a month, you must be told — either through media or in person — that so-and-so “Just came back from New York City. And they said it was incredible. No tents, hardly any homeless people. How do they do it?”
Well, they do it using the same logic that we just discussed. NYC’s “right to shelter,” law states that every unsheltered person must be offered a place to sleep. If they decline, they have to leave.
That’s not to say there aren’t controversies with the New York program. But for sheer orderly streets, the numbers support what visitors see. As the chart in the Bloomberg link above shows, New York has a far lower number of unsheltered homeless than SF, Seattle, Los Angeles etc.
So this could be a big opportunity. Granted, there is much that ailes San Francisco from wild takeover shoplifting to car break-ins to an open drug market.
But the disorder on the streets is more than an eyesore, it is a statement.
You know the broken window theory. If a business or residence gets a broken window and doesn’t fix it, it sends a message. They don’t care.
The San Francisco streets are the Crystal Cathedral of broken windows. They are terrible.
If you enjoyed this, you might want a subscription. It is free, right to your inbox, or you can donate to help the cause. Warning: due to poor work ethic by author, newsletters are irregular.
Just another reminder the top revenue provider for the city is tourism, not tech.
Yet SF streets are a constant conservative punchline across the country. And I continue to advance the conspiracy theory that the disarray is even affecting a team like the Giants. Wealthy, star athletes don’t want to bring their families to a place the Fox News treats like a hellscape.
They city can’t even protect and defend public buildings. It got so bad at the Federal Building that officials just threw up their hands and built a fence. That’s giving up.
So again, this court ruling opens the door for a potential game-changer for San Francisco. And, as usual, this triggers a question.
Now what?
It’s never been a city short on ideas of course. SF has banned a nuclear presence and Happy Meals. In fairness, also banned the sale of firearms and ammunition in the city limits, so not all bad.
But every once in a while the city hits on something big. A difference-maker.
And that’s where the problems start.
Nits will be picked. Hairs divided. As laid out in the SF Standard, there are still legal hurdles.
As for the ruling itself, as the Standard says, was a little confusing. At first it seemed like a loss for the city.
First, back in December, Judge Donna Ryu issued an injunction to a pending (likely in April) court case brought by the Coalition on Homelessness. Ryu’s 50-page order, said the city was “enjoined from enforcing or threatening to enforce” certain laws that “prohibit involuntarily homeless individuals from sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property.”
The city — shout out to City Attorney David Chui — appealed saying, what about people who are offered a bed, but refuse?
In an August hearing an attorney for the Coalition on Homelessness admitted that if someone declines shelter, he or she is not “involuntarily homeless.” Therefore the city can require them to pack up and leave.
Again, potential trip wires abound. The city will have to make sure it provides enough shelter beds for everyone who wants one. As Shaw points out, SFPD isn’t thrilled with the task of rousting homeless campers. The Department of Public Works will have to commit to cleaning the spaces.
And there’s still the actual court case in April.
Would you like to share this newsletter? Certainly. Just click here.
But this seems like an opportunity. As it stands, someone can basically say, I’m setting up camp in front of this home or business and I won’t leave, even if you offer me housing. That seems crazy.
It goes back to that original lawsuit, when the Coalition on Homelessness claimed the city was violating its own policy by criminalizing sleeping on the street and confiscating property when there were not enough shelter beds available.
This is a long and fraught argument. There are fights over what really is a shelter. And if beds become available at, say 11 p.m., should they count? The debates are endless.
But frankly, the COH point of view has always boiled down to the same premise. This is fine. Everyone stays where they are. You say residents don’t like it? Well maybe they ought to vote for more hundreds of millions of dollars to build permanent, sustainable housing for every person who comes to the city.
As the Chronicle reports, that would cost over a billion dollars. And that’s to house who is already here. Anyone who shows up after that would be an additional cost. It’s not sustainable.
And this is where we are. It’s an old argument, but it has a new urgency. San Francisco is hurting. Does anyone disagree with that?
This ruling may face legal hurdles. And there are bound to be complaints. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman is pushing a resolution to add 2,000 shelter beds. An increase definitely has to happen.
But this is too important not to try. At the very least it is a step in the right direction.
And when was the last time we said that?
Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Twitter: @cwnevius