Hllary Ronen, Supervisora de Distrito. Fotografía de Lola M. Chávez

Like the boulders of Clinton Park being rolled off the sidewalk, put back on, taken off again — and now perhaps replaced with bigger boulders — the political tug-of-war between a faction of the Board of Supervisors and Mayor London Breed over reforming San Francisco’s mental health system draws on, as people continue to suffer on the street. 

Supervisors Hillary Ronen and Matt Haney on Tuesday announced a revised version of a proposed March 2020 ballot measure that would overhaul San Francisco’s mental health system, a proposal they withdrew in July pending more outreach to the Department of Public Health and the unions. 

But Breed has given no indication she will support the revised proposal after officially walking away from negotiations on Sunday. 

The plan, called Mental Health SF, would no longer provide round-the-clock mental health services to every San Franciscan, as Ronen and Haney initially proposed. Rather, it would now provide these services to adult San Franciscans on public health plans, with no insurance at all, or in immediate crisis, even if privately insured. 

The plan would nonetheless cost the city $100 million annually, underwritten by a proposed tax on companies whose CEOs earn 100 times more than its ordinary employees. Here’s some of what that would pay for:  

  • A “Mental Health Service Center” would be set up and run 24/7 as a low-barrier access point for mental health services, substance abuse treatment, psychiatric medications, and referrals to longer-term care. It would also include a “drug sobering center” that would provide treatment beds, clinical support, and other services. 
  • Mental Health SF would also establish an “Office of Coordinated Care,” which would provide an inventory for available programs and services across the system. It would connect patients with appropriate case managers and health professionals, and coordinate with Jail Health Services and Psychiatric Emergency Services, as well as collect data for system improvement. 
  • A “Mental Health Street Crisis Team” would be formed. The team would be an expansion of the existing Mobile Crisis Team — composed of professionals trained to address mental health crises and substance abuse on the street. 
  • The initiative would establish an “Office of Insurance Accountability” that would hold private health insurance companies accountable to federal and state law if their clients are subject to excessive wait times. 
  • The plan would “expand services” so as to cut down on wait times and offer services to its covered clients “on demand.” 
  • Private-insured San Franciscans who are in crisis and unable to access timely services would be provided services, “as determined by a licensed clinician.”


Supervisor Hillary Ronen (left), Matt Haney (center), and Jennifer Esteen held a press conference on Mental Health SF on Oct. 1, 2019, at City Hall. Photo by Julian Mark.

Ronen and Haney said their $100 million annual cost estimate would add to the $400 million the city already spends on mental health services. Ronen said she believes that the city is currently wasting a “large portion” of existing expenditures due to “logjams” in the system.

Ronen added that spending more on the front end could curb the number of people forced onto the streets due to their mental illness. Right now, she said, the system is “hamster-wheeling” people in and out of services, which is a waste of money. 

“Every time you get someone stabilized and they decompensate again,” she said, “it’s that much harder to get them stabilized that second and third and fourth and fifth time around.”

She said she and Haney are currently working with the Controller’s Office for official cost estimates. Ronen said she expects the controller’s analysis to match her and Haney’s estimates, but “if they are more than $100 million, we are committed to tweaking the legislation” so that it costs less. 

The two supervisors say the revenue will be raised through so-called “Excessive CEO Salary Tax,” a separate ballot measure that would appear on a November 2020 and, if passed with a simple majority, tax companies whose high-paid employees earn 100 times the salaries of their rank-and-file workers. 

“We believe we addressed the concerns [the Mayor’s Office] brought up during our many meetings,” Haney said. “… we haven’t heard from them yet. We were prepared to present these amendments to them but they left the talks unexpectedly.” 

Breed, indeed, sent Ronen and Haney a letter dated Sept. 29, explaining that she believed the two sides had “fundamental policy differences in approach and who we are trying to serve.” 

Namely, the mayor believed the initiative should not serve the privately insured — at all. She also had reservations about the proposed low-barrier services center, explaining that a similar building already exists at 1380 Howard Street. “I am committed to supporting and expanding the services provided there,” she said. 

Breed also opposed the supervisors’ “insistence” on taking the initiative to the ballot, instead of being “shaped legislatively” within City Hall. “My door remains open to having discussions around the future of behavioral health services in our city,” Breed wrote, “but until the proposed Mental Health SF program addresses these fundamental differences in policy approach, we will no longer be engaging in these meetings.” 

In response to questions regarding whether the mayor is willing to resume talks in light of the amendments, Breed spokesman Jeff Cretan said that the mayor and the Department of Public Health are implementing a plan “to help 4,000 people who are homeless and living with mental illness and addiction on the streets.” 

“These are our most vulnerable residents who are in crisis that need help today,” he said, giving no indication either way on the mayor’s opinion of Mental Health SF’s current version. 

But Jennifer Esteen — a Department of Public Health psychiatric nurse and member of SEIU 1021, which supports the initiative — said at Tuesday’s press conference that the Health Department  and Mayor’s Office have been too focused on “short-term solutions,” mentioning Navigation Centers and the halted plan to replace permanent mental health beds with temporary shelter beds. 

“So if we take someone off the street for a day or two, or even two weeks, and we offer them access to treatment — that’s wonderful,” Esteen said. “But after that — then what?” 

The legislation will be voted on at the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee on Oct. 30 at 1 p.m.

Follow Us

Julian grew up in the East Bay and moved to San Francisco in 2014. Before joining Mission Local, he wrote for the East Bay Express, the SF Bay Guardian, and the San Francisco Business Times.

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Agree with Pat. Helen you are right that ACLU will fight it and they will lose because these individuals have no capacity to make decisions for themselves.

    Last but not least Ronen is a complete dud and total embarrassment. She will be completely forgotten.

  2. I would support a proposal like this if, and only if the proposal would require the people we see on the streets with severe mental health issues to be compelled to enter into this treatment. Regardless of the progressive mantra, this is the sane and compassionate thing to do, rather than to let them to continue to suffer, living in doorways and on the sidewalks because they do not have the mental lucidity or wherewithal to self-care.

  3. Campers,

    As Yogi Berra once so wisely said:

    “It’s deja vu all over again.”

    Willie Brown used to say …

    “If you come to me with a good idea …

    by the time you leave my office it will be ‘our’ idea.

    By the time you reach the street it will be ‘my’ idea.”

    Oh yeah, he said that and meant it.

    Newsom did it too.

    With Ammiano’s, ‘Healthy San Francisco’.

    Newsom opposed it for years while Tom fought
    to give SF the first genuine ‘Single Payer’ health
    coverage in the country.

    Once it passed, he took credit for it.

    Continues to.

    Same thing will happen here with ‘Mental Health San Francisco’.

    Once the voters ratify it, it will become part of Breed’s legacy.

    No one will remember Ronen or Haney or Mandelmann.

    Boudin for DA!

    Preston in D-!

    Raju for Public Defender!

    Miyamoto for Sheriff!!

  4. I would make one modest suggestion — that we required the same high caliber of public servant to run Supervisor Ronen and Haney’s proposed new SF Office of Coordinated Care that we have running SF City College. That’ll ensure success.