So Supervisor Mandelman is introducing his “A Place For All” legislation on the 21st, requiring SF to build enough safe sleep sites for every unhoused person within 18 months. We’ve known about this for awhile, but it’s time to talk publicly about how harmful this would be...

First let’s cover the basics: SSS’s vary in quality but essentially they’re empty lots with staffing and some services where residents sleep in tents. As of now, there’s a few hundred people sleeping in six sites, and the only real way to get a spot in one is HOT team.

Now the kicker: These sites cost over $60K a year per tent to run! For reference, that’s more than twice the average one bedroom in SF. Scaling this up to provide a spot for everyone on the street would easily cost hundreds of millions per year. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/local/amp/S-F-pays-61-000-a-year-for-one-tent-to-house-16001074.php

Considering that, with prop C, the city’s homelessness budget is only like $600M?, “A Place For All” could easily siphon half of available funds away from real (and cheaper!) solutions like housing. In short, Mandelman wants to trade permanent housing for more expensive tents.

Why would he do this? Well, besides the fact that pushing “shelter for all” policies is an age old political ploy to make politicians look like they’re fighting for solutions, the real name of the game here is enforcement.

In the “General Findings” of the leg, Mandelman talks about how “justifiably frustrated” housed San Franciscans are with street homelessness, and how Martin v Boise prevents the city from being as enforcement heavy as they’d like (not that that stops them from trying)

If made a reality, “A Place For All” provides the solution. Martin V Boise isn’t applicable if there’s enough shelter beds (not that tents should really qualify), so the city can do as many sweeps as they want until everyone is in a SSS or a jail cell.

This isn’t a progressive idea, and it’s not about helping unhoused people. It’s an attack on real solutions in favor of policing and coercive confinement, all so housed people don’t have to bear the sight of poor people in their neighborhoods.

To be clear, we’re not against these sites. They’re good alternatives to shelter for a lot of people. What we’re against is using them as a replacement for permanent solutions, and using them as an excuse to take away unhoused folks’ right to self-determination.

If you’ve made it this far, enjoy this meme made by my comrade @NutCheese and stay tuned for more information about the hearing on this bill on the 21st. We’ll be asking folks to turn out and tell the budget and finance committee what a shitty, violent proposal this is!