In an executive directive released earlier this month, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie altered a key campaign promise to end street homelessness within the first six months of his administration by, in part, standing up 1,500 shelter beds across the city.
He did this both by pushing back the target date for creating those beds and by redefining what constitutes a “shelter bed.”
The new definition is far more expansive, and sweeps up a broad assortment of “beds” that have little, if anything, to do with permanent shelter.
Lurie is also, seemingly, counting 361 beds already in the pipeline last year under former Mayor London Breed toward his goal, nearly a quarter of the goal.
Shelter beds are generally defined as temporary housing for homeless people, a place for individuals or families to live while figuring out a more permanent housing solution.
Lurie’s new definition, however, includes a wider-ranging swath of beds, including “interim housing and stabilization/treatment beds, including emergency shelter, hotel vouchers, transitional housing, stabilization centers, recovery and sober housing, and residential treatment,” according to the March 17 executive directive.
The directive additionally pushed the timeline to create these beds back two months, from June to mid-September.
The mayor’s office, for its part, said that these beds are not meant to be a “forever” solution.
The 1,500 beds are considered a temporary increase in shelter capacity, so that more people experiencing homelessness and mental-health crises can be moved off the street immediately, a spokesperson for Lurie explained.
“They will improve the flow and system and move people in there faster,” the mayor’s office added. “It is not a permanent solution.”
Lurie’s goal to eradicate unsheltered living was ambitious and, earlier this year, walked back: A few weeks after he was sworn in as mayor in January, his advisor described the promise to end street homelessness as a “slip-up.”
But Lurie’s administration stated that it has moved fast to enact his 1,500 bed goal: In a March 25 press release, the mayor’s office claimed that 700 beds are already in the stage of “implementation planning.” The office said that none of the 700 beds are yet under construction, but that all have been identified, including “200-plus” beds at 2177 Jerrold Ave. in Bayview.
Not all of those would be new beds, however. The Jerrold Avenue site would replace 60 “tiny homes” and 20 RV parking spots planned for that lot under then-Mayor London Breed; the city leased the land last year for that purpose.
The beds on the Jerrold Avenue site were among the 361 already in the pipeline in late 2024 under Breed. And it is unclear if Lurie is counting those toward his goal; when asked, his spokesperson declined to answer.
Lurie’s path to 1,500 beds, meanwhile, is already facing pushback.
On March 3, Mission Local reported that Supervisor Shamann Walton, who represents District 10, bristled at Lurie’s plan to replace the “homeless village” planned for 2177 Jerrold with shelter beds. Walton called Lurie’s move “inequitable” and “unjust.” Walton’s district has four other shelters, including the Bayshore Navigation Center, which offers 128 beds and is a five-minute walk away.
“What they think they can do and what the community accepts are different things,” Walton told Mission Local earlier this month.
Lurie’s plan also calls to extend the use of two hotels in Lower Nob Hill, the Monarch Hotel at 1015 Geary St., and the Adante Hotel at 610 Geary St. Both sites were among the 25 hotels converted to homeless shelters during the Covid-19 pandemic. The proposed extension, also, was met with outcry from neighbors.
As someone who’s formerly unhoused, and fighting for the rights of unhoused folks- and the health of unhoused folks, as well as drug user’s- I am incredibly nervous about this attempt. I don’t understand how the city can keep throwing money at temporary solutions that aren’t even bandaids, but nobody’s stopping the gushing of blood from the very open wound. Until the mayor does something to put a cap on rent increases, and starts taxing the folks with abandoned and/or vacant homes, the problem isn’t getting any better. The problem is the rent’s too damn high and the cost of living is too damn high…
If the rent here is too high and the cost of living here is too high…..go to a place where you can afford to live. It’s that simple.
ed,
I was on and off the Homeless list for 15 years, twelve of which I spent living in a 304 unit SRO at 44 McAllister.
SRO’s were considered Homeless designation in their Continuum of Care when I moved in because they thought it would be a bridge to the Permanent Low Income Housing they were going to build.
Sound familiar ?
Every day my dog and I cover around 6 blocks of City streets picking up trash and dragging things to the City trash cans.
With the Mayor’s help before he was Mayor we got the scaffolding left on two sides of the Armory which freed up over 600 linear feet of sidewalk and exposed the Homeless w/out tents.
Really, it’s the same people we saw when they were living in tents but now they just roam from alley to alley like characters in a Dickens novel.
Solution as I’ve pushed for years is to build campgrounds where they can have showers and laundry and toilets.
h.
Anytime somebody says “it’s that simple” to complex problems, it’s clear a simpleton is speaking.
There are 8,000 or more on the streets. Why only 1500 beds? Also, I don’t consider a SRO Hotel as adequate stable housing.
I didn’t vote for Lurie but I credit him. The city seems safer and more vibrant already.
Re-authorizing the police may be the key. Criminals and progressives may hate it, but most of us prefer a safe society
They’re expecting a fully furnished one-bedroom apt. for free and THIS is all they’re offering? No wonder they’re so upset!
When counting “beds” for the homeless is the mayor including the beds in San Francisco’s jails?
You must first cure drug addiction and give decent mental health care. Homelessness is not about losing a job, or bad luck. Normal, rational adults don’t live in piss and chit under a freeway,
Freeway – wants a cap on rent increases. How bout a job and rehab so you can contribute to society?
As a Bayview resident, it doesn’t seem like that spot is a bad idea. It’s in an industrial area. I think Walton might be overthinking or overreacting to this one. Although I understand that they empty the shelter beds during the day, this location is closer to the Mission than the residential areas of the Bayview. It’s also right by Bayshore, an easy path to take the 9 bus to downtown and walkable to SFGH. Walton’s overall point is valid, that they basically dump all their homeless in the Bayview, and families and children have to contend with that, is important, but that is a thoughtful location.
Mr. Mayor,
A quick and permanent solution would be to build 4 World Class RV/Tent Campgrounds like the ones you pass on the road (I camp at state parks).
Make them quality because AI will eliminate Poverty within 10 years one way or the other and we’ll have 4 one thousand campsites inside the best City in the World for all of the jobless (like me and I hope they work as hard as I do) to enjoy when the visit San Francisco.
First one should be for Homeless Vets next to the Fort Miley Veterans Medical Complex on half of Lincoln Golf Course which will cause a Fox explosion cause can you imagine the Homeless with such a view ?
No worry, within 10 years the City will be making money off the camp sites.
Go Niners !!
h.
Easier to meet expectations when you move the goalposts.
Great big waste of money.
““What they think they can do and what the community accepts are different things,” Walton told Mission Local earlier this month. ”
Could anyone have imagined Michela Alioto-Ronen bucking her nonprofit base and standing up for residents adjacent to Mission Cabins?
To the contrary, Hillary lied to constituents and centered the needs of her city funded nonprofit base that exists to monetize human misery and despair.