A group of Mission District neighbors will try to persuade the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to support their appeal of sections of the 100 percent affordable housing project at 16th and Mission streets.
The group would like to see homeless families, instead of tenants who have experienced addictions. However, since the building is already fully entitled, a state law approved in 2018 prevents such appeal.
Instead, a half-dozen or so neighbors are appealing the Department of Public Works’ approval of the project’s “parcel map subdivision.” The map divides the complex into three different parcels.
“This is essentially like a loophole that they discovered, where they could try to appeal the issuance of the addresses,” said Sam Moss, executive director of Mission Housing, which is developing the project with the Mission Economic Development Agency.
That first phase of the project is a nine-story, 136-unit building of permanent supportive housing. It reserves housing units for people who are, or have, experienced homelessness and or addictions. The front of the building will be on 16th Street between Capp and Mission streets.
“The building will house formerly homeless individuals and champion a housing-first ethos,” an approach that prioritizes housing homeless individuals first before stabilizing the prospective tenants, Moss said.
It also removes requirements on sobriety or absence of criminal history, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
The building will have social services and case management on site, according to the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the agency working in partnership. When asked if substance-use-disorder treatment will be present on site, the agency said that it is too early to say.
In their argument for the appeal, neighbors say they disagree with the height of the buildings, effects on traffic and parking as well as the worsening of street conditions that such housing could bring.
Currently, most of the city’s behavioral facilities and shelters are concentrated in the Tenderloin, SoMa, Bayview-Hunters Point and the Mission.
Neighbors say their main concern is who the permanent supportive housing may bring to the neighborhood. They instead want developers to turn the building into family housing, like the other two buildings.
“I think that there is a very high concentration of services in the 16th and Mission neighborhood,” said Aaron Wojack, a nearby neighbor who is supportive of permanent supportive housing, but criticizes the high concentration in the area and the effect on those nearby, like the children at Marshall Elementary School, who could witness first-hand the consequences of worsened street conditions.
Wojack worries that bringing people who may have, or have had, addictions to the neighborhood can pose a risk to them, given the proximity to ongoing drug dealing and open air drug use.
While the city has made strides in controlling the unpermitted vending and open-air drug use on the west side of Mission Street in the last four weeks, the east side of Mission Street has proven more resistant.
However, the Mission Street Team, which has been working in the area since mid-March, has continued to try new strategies and, by the time the development is up, the issues there could conceivably be resolved.
The neighbors appealing the approval, however, are leery.
Wojack said the developers failed to listen to neighbors’ concerns, and that they only held meetings addressing the height of one of the buildings and the shadow effect at Marshall Elementary.
“It seems like putting gasoline on a fire. I feel like that could make it hard to resolve drug use and drug dealing in the neighborhood,” Wojack added. “I don’t understand the logic of that decision.”
In a response submitted to the Board of Supervisors ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, Public Works kept to the specifics of the appeal on the basis of the subdivision maps.
It wrote that the appeal “fails to identify any concern related to the proposed land subdivision that would be grounds for denying the division of the existing parcel into three parcels or reversing the approval of the Tentative Map.”
Public Works wrote that other concerns should be brought up to the Planning Department and/or the Department of Building Inspection.
The Planning Department also kept its response focused on the subdivision, writing that it approved the tentative map on May 28 after finding the application in compliance with the planning code.
Moss, for his part, believes the neighbors’ appeal is an effort to delay the construction and potentially kill the project.
“The community has been working on this for over a decade. Hundreds and hundreds of community members have asked for permanent supportive housing, have asked for very low income housing, have asked for affordable housing for families and seniors and individuals, and that’s what we’re delivering,” said Moss.
Dr. Margot Kushel, the director at the University of California, San Francisco’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, said that, though she sympathizes with neighbors who feel concerned about the high concentration of resources in an area, studies on permanent supportive housing have shown crime does not increase in the surrounding neighborhoods.
The developers plan to offer mental-health services on the ground floor.
The first phase of the project is fully entitled, and developers aim to break ground by the end of the year. The project’s total cost is $111. 4 million, and its funding is a mix of federal credits, tax equity bonds, city funding, a private commercial loan and about $54.5 million in tax credits. The state’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee is expected to deliver a decision early next month.
Developers will have six months to break ground after the tax credits are awarded. If they fail to do so, they could make their applications uncompetitive with the committee for five years.
“Supportive housing is a protected category of housing in California law … You can’t have extra rules for that kind of housing and use the fact that it’s going to have a certain class of people as a reason for turning it down,” said Mike Rawson, director of advocacy and litigation at Public Interest Law Project, a state supported center that provides support to all local legal aid societies in the state.
“The city knows this, so the city is probably going to reject their appeal.”
Mission District supervisor Jackie Fielder said on Monday she could not comment on how she would vote ahead of an appeal.
First they opposed it because it wasn’t 100% affordable. Then they opposed it because it was 100% affordable for the wrong kinds of people. Then they’ll think of another reason the next time around.
This project underscores exactly why Bilal Mahmood’s proposal to equitably distribute addiction and homeless services across San Francisco is not just timely—it’s essential. The Tenderloin is already over saturated with these services so now the housing-first advocates and their supporters have set their sights on the Mission.
Once again, it’s the compassion of the Mission’s immigrant, working-class, and middle-class residents that’s being exploited to accommodate the city’s most vulnerable populations—while we ourselves live under increasingly strained and precarious conditions. At-risk neighborhoods like ours cannot continue to bear the weight of San Francisco’s addiction crisis.
Former Supervisor Hillary Ronen and others actively pushed for safe sleeping sites, navigation centers, and addiction services to be concentrated in our neighborhood—while they reside in areas shielded from the real-life consequences of their own policies. It’s time for every neighborhood in San Francisco to live up to the progressive values they so proudly claim, and to share responsibility for addressing this self-inflicted humanitarian crisis—especially those who have supported the very policies that led to the unsafe, unsanitary, and destabilizing conditions we now face in the very vicinity of this proposed site.
Perhaps it’s also time to reexamine San Francisco’s district-based governance. Too many supervisors act as defenders of their narrow interests rather than as stewards of the city’s collective well-being– creating an untenable imbalance. For years, San Francisco’s leadership has championed a symbolic—but ultimately failed—progressivism, embracing housing-first orthodoxy and permissive drug policies without accountability. Now, they’re shifting the burden of this self-inflicted crisis disproportionately onto neighborhoods like the Mission—precisely because we lack the political clout, resources, or pragmatic leadership to push back.
Concentrating large numbers of deeply troubled individuals in a single, overextended community is not just poor policy—it’s unconscionable.
And now, we watch as the Board of Supervisors begins to tragically dilute Bilal Mahmood’s proposal. Shame on them all.
The nonprofits opposed the Maximus project because it was luxury condos. The Plaza 16 Coalition called for affordable housing for families. The nonprofits now want to put substance and psych treatment next to an elementary school with many vulnerable youth. Appellants want the Plaza 16 vision of affordable housing for families. It is the nonprofits that have lost the script here.
Those greedy nonprofits just want to milk crackheads for that sweet, sweet Medicaid money!
Those so-called luxury condos don’t sound so bad now, huh?
The only thing worse than a crust punk from Idaho smoking meth is a highly educated, conscientious, high income adult trying to establish a career and family!
Let’s hope it’s a better builder and management company.
“Bayview’s Alice Griffith housing was built in 2017. It’s already falling apart. Why?”
It’s not a bad idea to think about the long term effects of our actions… in this case there are at least two groups in need of consideration: the vulnerable folks with addiction who need housing and the neighbors who need safe, clean and drug free streets. So, what are the long term effects on the neighborhood— a neighborhood that is currently overwhelmed with unsanitary street condition, unpermeted vending full of stolen goods, and open air drug market and drug use, and what are the effects on a vulnerable population plopped in the middle of all this. Dr. Margo Kushell is a smart and dedicated voice on this topic, but to use her quote “studies on permanent supportive housing have shown crime does not increase in the surrounding neighborhoods” doesn’t do much to allay our concerns. At 16th and mission we’re approaching a ceiling effect on crime. Yes, there’s little room for things to get much worse than this. As members of this community, our aspirations are not, let’s keep things as bad as they are. We’re hopeful that conditions on the streets could be addressed and improved and that they won’t exploit a population vulnerable to drug use, and that the vulnerable population won’t inadvertently support the already catastrophic street conditions.
I fully support the Capp St neighbors who are objecting to this development. The city shows its contempt by demanding that we house the volitionally homeless, untreated drug addicts, and severely mentally ill in our neighborhoods without any preconditions regarding sobriety or compliance with the law. Does anyone at City Hall even consider the needs of working taxpaying San Franciscans anymore? We are continuously guilt tripped to throw money down the “Housing First” rathole. We’re forced to support conditions that are destroying our neighborhoods and quality of life.
May the hate spewed in your comments one day be replaced with care. May you one day realize that homes solve homelessness and all people, regardless of substance usage, deserve a home. And may one day you actually listen to the experts who have, time and again, proven that permanent housing (especially with wraparound services) does, indeed, solve substance use as well.
…and may your well-intended idealism someday be tempered with insight. Giving free housing without preconditions to people who then destroy it is neither wise nor compassionate. Wanting clean streets free of drug dealing and stolen-goods sales isn’t hatred.
> proven that permanent housing (especially with wraparound services) does, indeed, solve substance use as well
No it hasn’t. In fact, if anything it’s shown the opposite.
“We enrolled 423 participants (199 intervention; 224 control). Eighty-six percent of those randomized to PSH received housing compared with 36 percent in usual care… We found no differences in total ED [emergency department] or inpatient [medical care] use, or jail. Seventy (37 treatment; 33 control) participants died.”
You can house them and give them intensive services, but that still won’t cure their dysfunction.
Looks like you’re quoting the findings from Raven, Niedzwiecki & Kushel (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13249
Yet you managed to skip over the favorable findings, whoops.
For anyone interested, here is the full text: We enrolled 423 participants (199 intervention; 224 control). Eighty‐six percent of those randomized to PSH received housing compared with 36 percent in usual care. On average, the 169 individuals housed by the PSH intervention have remained housed for 28.8 months (92.9 percent of the study follow‐up period). Intervention group members had lower rates of psychiatric ED visits IRR 0.62; 95% CI [0.43, 0.91] and shelter days IRR 0.30; 95% CI [0.17, 0.53], and higher rates of ambulatory mental health services use IRR 1.84; 95% CI [1.43, 2.37] compared to controls. We found no differences in total ED or inpatient use, or jail. Seventy (37 treatment; 33 control) participants died.
The question here is no longer if permanent supportive housing is effective—it is, at least for some groups—but how the addition of such housing in a drug rich neighborhood will impact both those struggling with addiction (we know the answer to that question, neighborhood drug activity increases relapse rate) and the neighborhood (maybe less clear, but we know that having storefronts and foot traffic, fewer people who are interested in buying/using drugs, helps create a more vibrant and safe neighborhood).
Ultimately, it’s fair to say that the quality of the neighborhood has been in decline. Putting in this housing likely won’t make things much worse (although it will continue to concentrate poverty, illness and trauma), but it’s highly unclear that it will make the neighborhood better (especially if there won’t be any storefronts or other public use of lower level space) and residents are resentful about this, pretty reasonable.
May you all at some point reconnect with your own humanity and stop spewing hate from all your pores.
Just what we need: a center that prioritizes junkies. Because apparently we don’t have enough junkies already.
Everything fpastine writes is true.
I have been told that recovering from drug addiction is much harder when drugs are sold at your front door. It is easy to sell drugs if you can hop on/off BART at 16th & Mission. And it is convenient to sell stolen goods at 16th & Mission to get the money to buy drugs. Please give people who live in the Inner Mission a break, & focus on family & senior housing at 16th & Mission.
I’ll bet $100 Aaron Wojack complained to the city about drug users and homeless in his neighborhood demanding they do something!
And when they do, he says “I meant move them out of my sight, not build a home for them near me!”
NIMBYs are the worst.
Since so called ‘activists’ labeled self supporting humans, as “monsters” in the Mission. I see no problem in labeling losers who need assistance in their messed up lives, as actual …. MONSTERS. You can have your phony made up monsters, but I can point out the real monsters. Who really is deserving of scorn in this city ? Not the ones who pay the taxes to support the parasites! As the savvy people with money leave SF, the further descent into chaos will be the “progressives” just reward for their deluded and foolish ideology.
Nobody “labeled self supporting humans as monsters,” go lie on Fox News.
Please check out Orinda or Texas Gilda. Wow, what a lack of empathy and huge amount of hate for one person.
Funny how you think good, self enabled citizens should… LEAVE. But toxic out of control failures, should be accommodated at public expense, of which no amount is TOO much, for their care and boarding (at least good citizens can pay their own expenses and taxes too). Look at the disaster the Mission’s streets are, for the results of your unsustainable ethos that always ends in certain failure. Keep up your false religion of irrational ’empathy’ and San Francisco is guaranteed to get worse and worse. Empathy solves nothing and misused, destroys society. Just like anyone with eyes that can see clearly, has already happened in San Francisco
May you one day realize that it is in fact, you, who is the monster and the loser.
Well as I noted above, you have no problem labeling other people as ‘monsters’ and ‘losers’ you disagree with. So you have no integrity or moral high ground at all, it’s just what tribe you want to align with. You picked the “problem” tribe, people who are always needy and drain the life out of a healthy city. I pick the good citizen tribe. People who can keep a job, pay their bills and don’t spend their lives, sponging off of others.
I agree it’s funny how there are a set of commenters who see monstrosity everywhere in internet comments but nothing but gentle souls amongst street blocks of shoplifting, meth smoking ne’er-do-wells.
Monster is your term that I am just wishing back to you. So please keep it, darling.
MONSTER IN THE MISSION…. It’s a term invented by delusional ‘empathy’ fetishizing leftists who worship the lowest of society and hate anyone who can manage to lead a successful life. Look it UP. MONSTER IN THE MISSION was applied to a subset of people who could pay rent without sponging off of others, several years ago…HOW DARE THEY !
Mission Local has published multiple articles about the failure of 100% affordable housing developments here in San Francisco. Unsafe living conditions on a number of levels.
This is another step in turning the Mission into a containment zone while killing off a vibrant neighborhood.
I major element that was left out is that this project has no plans for commercial space. They will remove existing businesses that are natural stewards of the street and not replace them. This leaves no “Eyes on the street”, to reference a recent article by Lydia Chavez about the positive effects of this relationship between business and the sidewalk. And for the record, I am not worried that it will make the area worse. It’s been struggling for many years. The concern is that this plan will bot help the neighborhood thrive. Yes we need supportive housing. Maybe we could disperse this amongst neighborhoods that are not under so much strain. Perhaps some of the so called YIMBY neighborhoods could host this project.
Supervisor Fielder won’t publicly support a 100% affordable project in her district.
Courageous.
Fielder knows this appeal is baseless but she doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the coalition of “progressive” homeowners and their friends who not so secretly don’t want poor people in their backyard.
Sir or madam —
Any supervisor who opines on such a matter ahead of a hearing would subsequently have to recuse themselves. This is very, very basic government and has happened many, many times through the years.
Supervisor Fielder, as well as all 10 of her colleagues, rejected the appeal on Tuesday.
Best,
JE
Why does Mission Local ask her for a comment then? Should your article not say, “we would have liked to ask sup fielder for a comment but then she would have to recuse herself, this is very very basic”.
It is simply untrue that supervisors are not “allowed” to make public statements on relevant issues in their community that will be voted on. She could say, for example, that she can’t comment on the details of this appeal ahead of the vote, but she is supportive of the project overall. But she wouldn’t, and Mission Local would not push her to, despite multiple opportunities.
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is, as clearly demonstrated by Fielder’s subsequent vote and press release about it. Legislators don’t opine ahead of time about items they’re going to vote on in a future hearing. You can nitpick the supervisor or our coverage of her but it seems pretty pointless: She has now stated her position, unequivocally.
JE