Supervisor Matt Dorsey’s plan to fund drug-free homeless housing in San Francisco was sent back to committee for edits Tuesday afternoon after the San Francisco Marin Medical Society, Coalition on Homelessness, and others raised issues with whether and how low-income tenants might be evicted from such housing.
The San Francisco Marin Medical Society, a trade association of more than 3,500 doctors and other medical workers, said that Dorsey’s bill should ensure anyone evicted for drug use “is not at risk of a return to homelessness as a result of that eviction.”
It also said that, while the city “should prioritize drug-free housing,” it should “not create new obstacles or be restrictive in funding for supportive housing” that is not drug-free.
The two sides reached an agreement on those positions “in principle,” Dorsey’s office wrote in an email Tuesday.
Dorsey’s law will be heard again in committee on May 28 after the two sides finalize exact language.
The law would allow those seeking “permanent supportive housing,” a type of low-income housing, to choose between entering housing where tenants could be evicted for using drugs on the premises, or housing in which drug-use alone cannot trigger an eviction.
All current San Francisco permanent supportive housing programs, in line with state policies, conform to the latter.
Dorsey’s legislation only applies to future San Francisco permanent supporting housing — not the current supply — and it would only apply to either wholly city-funded housing, or proposals funded all or in part by abstinence-minded private sources.
But in practice, supportive housing sites are built with a mix of local, state, federal, and sometimes private funds, none are wholly funded by the city or a single private source. For Dorsey’s legislation to be meaningfully applied, state funds would need to be put into sober-housing programs.
This may happen as early next year: Assemblymember Matt Haney has proposed legislation to create sober housing. A prior version of Haney’s bill passed the legislature unanimously in September 2025 but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Haney’s office, for its part, said that residents would not be evicted for temporary relapses; Dorsey has said the same. Notably, Dorsey’s ordinance leaves the specific eviction threshold to departmental rule-making, while Haney’s Bill 1556 treats eviction as a last resort after a resident has turned down multiple alternative placements.
“Recovery isn’t linear, and a setback shouldn’t mean losing everything,” Haney’s office wrote in a statement. “That’s why our bill distinguishes between momentary relapse and return to use.”
The 2025 Homelessness Needs Assessment reported that 53 percent of single adults and 28 percent of families served through the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing’s programs had substance use or mental health disorders.
Dorsey wrote in his legislation that his bill would improve outcomes for a wide range of permanent supportive housing residents, including families with children, older adults, and people at various points in their recovery from substance use disorders.
Dorsey, supervisor of District 6, has a personal stake in his legislation. He has been public with his past struggles with addiction, and said he relapsed twice during the pandemic. His district houses a majority of new residential stock in San Francisco.
The San Francisco Marin Medical Society and Dorsey’s office previously clashed over several provisions, including whether the ordinance’s drug-free standard should be limited to people formally in recovery from substance use disorders and whether families with children should be able to choose drug-free housing.
“We are very appreciative of Supervisor Dorsey’s outreach to us,” said Adam Francis, a director at the San Francisco Marin Medical Society. “We’re having ongoing conversations about the ordinance. We’re just thankful to be included in the conversation.”
If you are getting taxpayer funded services such as public housing, you should each be responsible for your actions. Also, public housing should be regulated to be drug-free, not another area of drug dealing shops and ingestion sites. There has been more than enough drug deaths already, and Narcan is life support for addicted people that is not always available. Addictive drugs have ruined many people. Some were good people until they got hooked on drugs. Some became criminals as result of their dependencies. Some lost their families, friends and their lives. I’m for compassion, but I’m also for drug interdiction programs, law enforcement, opportunities for being employed again, and being responsible for yourselves. Nothing is free, but there are expectations of results for things being paid for by the taxpayers.
I sent a message to Supervisor Dorsey concerning his legislation. My brother was living in a city provided hotel with a “No drugs” policy. My brother had a 40 heroin habit. He lived in the hotel for 7 years. To the best of my knowledge he was drug free for at least 3 years. He died in his hotel room of a drug overdose. When we (his family) went to clean out his hotel, I discovered there was drug dealing going on outside the front door. That said, you can have all the rules and second, third and fourth chances on these new housing programs but if the housing is located in an area where a person could get easy access to drugs, its a waste of investing in the betterment of people. I did receive a tone-deaf but sympathetic reponse from the supervisor’s office. Therefore, I have no hope that this new proposed legislation is going to save lives.
Once they become addicts, it’s over for 90% of them. You’re just pretending they can be ‘fixed’. Most die as addicts.