“Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The San Francisco Bay Area comprises nine northern California counties and contains four of the ten most expensive counties in the United States. Strong economic growth has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs, but coupled with severe restrictions on building new housing units, has resulted in an extreme housing shortage which has driven rents to extremely high levels. The Sacramento Bee notes that large cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles both attribute their recent increases in homeless persons to the housing shortage, with the result that homelessness in California overall has increased by 15% from 2015 to 2017.^[1]^[2] In San Francisco, a minimum wage worker would have to work approximately 4.7 full-time jobs to be able to rent a two-bedroom apartment. While homelessness in the SF Bay Area is significant, "In no state can a full-time minimum wage worker afford a one-bedroom or a two-bedroom rental unit at Fair Market Rent. ...while spending no more than 30% of income on housing costs." ^[3]

San Francisco has several thousand homeless residents, despite extensive efforts by city government to address the issue.^[4] The dramatically larger prevalence of visible homelessness in the city (relative to other large US cities) is widely noted by visitors as well as residents, and as of 2018, is starting to impact the city's largest industry, tourism (a $9 billion industry), as one large doctors' group has decided to move their annual convention elsewhere after members' concerns about threatening behavior, mental illness, and assault on one of their board members.^[5]^[6]

The number of the individuals in poverty in the San Francisco Bay Area grew from 573,333 (8.6%) in 2000 to 668,876 (9.7%) in 2006-2010.^[7] While poverty rates vary greatly across the SF Bay area, in 2015, the Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies published that the poverty rate was 11.3%, having a slight downward trend from 12%, however, it was still above the historical average rate of 9%.^[8]

Historical background

Emergence in the late 70's and early 80's

The prevalence of homelessness emerged both in San Francisco and the United States in general in the late 70's and early 80's. Jennifer Wolch identifies some of these factors to include the loss of jobs from deindustrialization, a rapid rise in housing prices, and the elimination of social welfare programs.^[9] The economic shift from production oriented jobs in factories towards the service industry resulted in a loss of wages as factory jobs were more lucrative. This decrease in wages was compounded by the fact housing prices continued to rise, with average real estate value in the Bay Area increasing by 100% between 1984 and 1990.^[10] As these economic changes were occurring, social events also impacted the city's homeless population. The deinstitutionalization movement of the 70's had succeeded, and saw the mass transfer of mental health patients to community based clinics. This transfer was not smooth, as many previously institutionalized patients found themselves back in society with less support than they were accustomed to and few possessed the professional skills or resources needed to successfully transition.^[11] The failure of deinstitutionalization is often attributed to the cuts to mental health services made at the same time, with mental health budgets decreasing by a third between 1978 and 1982.^[9] As a result, the homeless population has had a disproportionate rate of mental health needs ever since the 80's.

Feinstein years (1978-1988)

Dianne Feinstein, was the first mayor of San Francisco that had to address the homeless issue. Her administration operated under the belief that the growing homeless problem was a temporary issue that was an effect of a recent recession. The response to the problem was to open temporary shelters that would provide a sandwich and a bed for a night with the hope that those served could find permanent housing soon.^[12] This program proved to be underfunded and unprepared for the demand of residents and the homeless population continued to grow.

Agnos administration (1988-1992)

Feinstein's successor, Art Agnos, took a more involved approach to address the homeless problem as part of a broader progressive mayoral campaign. Agnos' view of homelessness was that it was the result of structural inequalities and could only be resolved by intervention from state welfare programs.^[13] Under his direction, two multi-service buildings that provided mental health counseling and substance abuse support in addition to housing were opened to benefit the homeless community.^[14]

Camp Agnos

Despite Agnos' official support for the homeless, his administration was not without some controversy. A group of young anarcho-activists, Food Not Bombs, began to distribute free vegetarian meals to homeless individuals in parks around the Haight, which was opposed by a group representing developers and business interests.^[13] Tensions between activists, who argued they were just providing aid to the residents the city didn't support, and the city eventually escalated in the city arresting activists and confiscating their supplies. Clashes between the city and activists continued off and on over the course of the following year, until confrontations over the usage of Civic Center Park escalated to the occupation of the park by a mix of activists and members from the homeless community estimated to number between 300 and 350 in all and eventually became known as "Camp Agnos". Complaints from the protesters included the city's inaction to address the growing home, lack of affordable housing options, and the ineffectiveness of existing shelters. One homeless protester said of the services provided, ''A shelter is like being in prison. There's no freedom of movement'' and complained of the inability of being able to use shelters with her husband, opting instead to sleep on the streets so they could be together.^[15] Under pressure from the Board of Supervisors and the negative publicity, Agnos reluctantly ordered police to ticket and arrest those who remained in Camp Agnos.^[16]

Jordan crackdown (1992-1996)

Former police chief Frank Jordan won the 1992 mayoral race on a platform of bringing public order back to the city and promised to return public space back to its residents from the homeless and youth activists. Jordan sought to crack down on the disorderly and troublesome activists who he thought were dealt with too leniently by the former administration. Jordan's four years saw 700 arrests and citations given to the Food Not Bombs activists,^[13] prompting Amnesty International to respond:

Matrix program

Jordan's homeless policy extended beyond confronting Food Not Bombs members and their homeless allies. Jordan introduced the Matrix Program, which expanded the role police had in tackling homelessness by increasing the number of citations given to homeless individuals for city misdemeanors, with 6,000 citations issued in the first six months of the program's initiation.^[12] Matrix teams of city police usually accompanied with social service workers to systematically sweep the city block by block to engage members of the homeless community and dismantle homeless encampments. The initial reception from city residents was mostly positive with 75% of calls to the Mayor's office praising the crackdown as a needed step to clean the city up.^[18]

Critics of Matrix accused the program of using resources on punitive enforcement of quality of life laws that generally only effect the homeless community, like sleeping in public and loitering, instead of promoting services to aid the homeless. Mass citations to the homeless, critics argued, was counter-productive since those in extreme poverty lacked the funds to pay the fines. Judges would respond to unpaid fines by issuing arrest warrants, resulting in the incarceration of homeless individuals when the same resources used to jail the inmates could instead go towards expanding shelter services.^[19] Additional critiques lobbied at the program centered around the use of police as social service workers. Matrix police were authorized to give psychological field tests to determine if a homeless person was acting erratically and were the deciding force on whether or not to bring the individual to the hospital for mental services.^[20] In 1994, homeless rights advocates succeeded in convincing the board of supervisors to pass a resolution opposing the Matrix Program, with Jordan's response being to double down by expanding the program's sweeps to Golden Gate Park.^[20] Though the Matrix program persisted, public opinion shifted against it for being too harsh and Jordan failed to secure a second term.

Willie Brown (1996-2004)

The militarized clearance of the homeless encampments within Golden Gate Park, which had an estimated population of 1,000 throughout the park and featured the deployment of police helicopters equipped with infra-red cameras, demonstrated Brown's commitment to his promise: "You tell me where the camp is, and in 24 hours it won't be there".^[22] These citations were less publicized than Jordan's Matrix program and considered to be routine policing instead of any homeless oriented policy, allowing Brown to avoid some of the negative publicity that plagued his predecessor. Not all of Brown's positions were detrimental to the homeless community as he successfully mobilized support to secure a $100 million government bond to expand affordable housing and his support for universal healthcare was a central tenet to his platform, though its implementation was never manifested.^[23]

Riding a robust economy and operating under a patronage system that benefited his allies and restricted political opponents, Brown was able to secure a second term despite policies that alienated his liberal base, including his harsher than expected treatment of the city's homeless.^[24]

Gavin Newsom (2004-2010)

Gavin Newsom, a previous member of the city's board of supervisors, succeeded Brown after running as a Democratic centrist to become San Francisco's youngest mayor in the past century.^[25] Given the ineffective steps taken to address homelessness over the past two decades, Newsom sought to implement wholesale change on how the city interacted with its homeless community as he thought programs needed more resources and oversight{{Citation needed|date=February 2019}}. With Newsom's support, the city passed two measures, propositions M and N, to change homeless policy. Proposition M expanded quality of life laws to include the prohibition of "aggressive" panhandling and panhandling near ATMs, parking lots, or buses.^[20] Though this was another quality of life law and included citations, priorities were made to funnel offenders to substance-abuse or mental health treatment as much as possible.

Care Not Cash (Prop N)

A cornerstone of Newsom's homeless legislation was actually passed with his support while he was still on the board of supervisors in 2002. Proposition N, better known as Care Not Cash, was passed by the city with 60% approval with the goal to overhaul the city's welfare system by cutting General Assistance payments to eligible adults from $395 a month (one of the highest rates in California) to $57 a month and to use the savings to expand care services for the city's homeless residents.^[20] Newsom claimed that using resources for services would prove to be more effective at supporting homeless residents instead of handouts, arguing that cash handouts encouraged homeless individuals to flock to the city from neighboring counties, along with increased usage of emergency medical services and crime rates on the weekends the cash was dispersed.^[26] His claim that handouts cause crime rates to spike and increased hospitalization has been disputed by some academic studies conducted in San Francisco, which have found an inverse relationship between recipients of monetary subsidies and risky behaviors such as substance usage.^[27] Care Not Cash resulted in approximately 1,200 homeless individuals finding shelter via the usage of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in hotels throughout the city, however those that did not receive housing found life on the streets even more difficult due to the sharp funding cuts.^[20] Critics of the program accuse it of having exclusive standards to participate in, thereby excluding large segments of the homeless population, as well as using substandard SRO housing units, which often lack private bathrooms and food prep areas, as permanent housing.^[28]

Other programs

Other measures introduced included Homeward Bound and Operation Outreach, as well as the introduction of new sit-lie ordinances. Homeward Bound was a program to pay for bus tickets to send homeless individuals out of the city so long as they could prove they had a place to be received at their destination. This was met with resistance from critics like the Coalition for Homelessness who accused the program of not solving anything and was just dumping the problem off to other counties.^[29] Mayor Newsom argued that "the vast majority of people that are out on the sidewalks are not from San Francisco originally" and would be better served by being returned to supportive family members, although the San Francisco's 2007 homeless census found that only 31% percent of the homeless population became homeless outside of San Francisco.^[30]

Operation Outreach was instituted in 2004 and, echoing some of the philosophies behind the Matrix program of the Jordan era, utilized police officers to enforce quality of life laws.^[31] This program differed from the Matrix program in that it involved a diverse number of agencies with the purpose of connecting the homeless community with services as the primary goal, with the quality of life citations a secondary result. The effectiveness of the outreach aspect of the program is disputable, as the Coalition found that only 24 of 204 individuals surveyed received a referral to a program or service in their last encounter with the police.^[32]

In his last year, Newsom expanded the quality of life laws within the city by successfully passing Proposition L in a public vote, which banned city residents from sitting or lying on sidewalks between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.^[33]

Causes of homelessness

Mass homelessness has several contributing factors, including: "Economic Dislocation", "Reduced Social Safety Nets", "Failed Housing Policy", "Mass Incarceration", "Family Instability", "Structural Racism", and other "Individual Causes" including mental health and physical wellness.^[34] Reasons cited for homelessness in the 2015 survey commissioned by the City of San Francisco include job loss (25%), alcohol/drug use (18%), eviction (13%), argument/asked to leave by friend/family (12%), and divorce/separation (11%). Reasons for coming from outside San Francisco at the time of homelessness include seeking a job (25%), LGBTQ acceptance (11%), to access homeless services (22%), was visiting and decided to stay (17%), accessing VA services or clinic (5%), and family/friends are here (13%).^[35]

Great Depression

Into the 20th century, the Great Depression of the 1930s caused a devastating epidemic of poverty, hunger, and homelessness, particularly in industry-dependent cities, such as San Francisco.^[45]

Two million homeless people migrated across the United States in search of housing, especially into the west coast. The number of people without homes grew in the 1980s in SF, as wages stagnated and funding for welfare reform was cut, eliminating the social safety net for underserved communities.^[46]

Housing crisis

Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations.^[36] Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 stories tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments.^[36] Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth.^[36]

In 2002, the SFPD launched the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Planning Process to resolve recognized land use conflicts in several SF neighborhoods. Many stakeholders in these neighborhoods oversaw the planning process, which was focused on the rezoning of historically industrial lands for new residential uses, but was unresponsive to neighborhood concerns of unaffordable housing, residential and job displacement, gentrification, public safety, and inadequate open space.^[37] Only those who could afford these limited new housing units were able to access housing, causing socioeconomically disadvantaged and ethnic minority groups to either seek housing in under resourced neighborhoods of San Francisco such as the Tenderloin or lose housing completely, leading to poor health outcomes for marginalized populations.^[37]

Gentrification and displacement

Gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area is of increasing concern, a research and action initiative of UC Berkeley in collaboration with researchers at UCLA and Portland State University has produced The Urban Displacement Project to "[examine] the relationships between investment, neighborhood change, gentrification and displacement." This study indicates rising levels of segregation in relation to increasing income inequality in the SF Bay Area. A mapping tool has been also been developed through the project to track displacement and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area (http://www.urbandisplacement.org/map/sf).^[38]

The ongoing gentrification in the SF Bay area is deepening structural divisions. The rapid economic growth of the tech industry in San Francisco and nearby Silicon Valley has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs.^[39]^[36] The resultant high demand for housing, combined with the lack of supply, (caused by severe restrictions on the building of new housing units) have caused dramatic increases in rents and extremely high housing prices, adding to the already developing housing crisis. For example, from 2012 to 2017, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 400,000 new jobs, but only 60,000 new housing units.^[36]

Even through real income rates in the Bay Area have been increasing over time, it was published in 2011 by the American Journal of Economics and Sociology that low-income residents are left with less leftover income after their rental payments that the equivalent in the 1960s.^[40]

By the end of 2000, gentrification in San Francisco grew to the center of political and organizing activity. Anti-displacement advocates received success in gaining representation on SF’s Planning Department (SFPD) and in advancing new regulations (e.g., inclusionary zoning) to protect and create affordable housing, which led to a shift from citywide to district legislative elections to address neighborhood concerns at the city level.^[41]

On January 18, 2016, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, in response to issues of gentrification the Black Seed Collective coordinated a Black Lives Matter movement protest blocking all westbound traffic on the Bay Bridge that connects Oakland and San Francisco. During this protest they demanded for "the immediate divestment of city funds for policing and investment in sustainable, affordable housing so Black, Brown and Indigenous people can remain in their hometowns of Oakland and San Francisco."^[42]

A major problem of food insecurity as a result of high rents exacerbated by gentrification has caused some to resort to long-term dependence on friends, family and charity; stealing food; exchanging sex for food; and selling controlled substances as a means for overcoming food insecurity.^[43]

Exclusionary zoning policies

In the 1960s, San Francisco and surrounding Bay Area cities enacted strict zoning regulations.^[46] Zoning is the legal restriction of sections or districts of a city to particular uses, such as residential, industrial, or commercial. In the 60s, SF relied heavily on manufacturing and the leading causes of death were communicable diseases from industrial labor and pollution. Zoning was originally executed as a public health prevention policy to ensure industrial emissions are separated from residential areas.

The housing crisis is both a regional and local problem. Gentrification and exclusion are intimately related at a neighborhood level. If a high-demand, high-cost neighborhood won’t build, developers and people looking for housing will be diverted to the nearest low-cost neighborhoods.^[44] That increases demand and development and leads to gentrification. Since the residents of high-cost, high-demand neighborhoods tend to have mobility, money, and access to information and power, they are hugely successful in leveraging land-use policies to exclude newcomers.^[44]

Exclusionary zoning policies in San Francisco in city planning have caused a divide in affordability and accessibility for housing. The anti-development orientation of certain cities is turning them into preserves for the wealthy as housing costs increase beyond what lower-income families can afford to pay, which displaces communities and residents of low-income areas, leading to rising rates of homelessness.^[44]

Redlining policies

Additionally, until 1968, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) enforced an explicit redlining policy of racial discrimination in mortgage lending. Under redlining, racial minority groups were refused loans for mortgages. The policy incentivized homeowners to restrict the sale of houses to white families only, creating all-white neighborhoods.^[45] Although prohibited by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the practice of neighborhood delineation based on race and class had a lasting impact, depriving certain neighborhoods of essential resources such as housing, schools, clinics, and grocery stores. The zoning policies created divisions within SF districts, widening the income inequality gap and polarizing resource accessibility and socioeconomic demographics, seen especially in the Tenderloin District, which currently experiences the highest rates of homelessness.^[46]

Prevalence and visibility by city

Cities in the United States, including the city of San Francisco buy one-way free bus tickets for homeless relocation, this has been occurring over the last three decades. From 2010 to 2017, an estimated [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study "20,000 homeless people have been sent to and from within the mainland US"].^[47] There have been numerous reports and lawsuits between cities regarding homeless and patient-dumping.^[48]

San Francisco

As of 2014, the city is believed to have approximately 7,000 homeless residents.^[49]^[50] As of 2015, approximately 71% of the city's homeless had housing in the city before becoming homeless, while the remaining 29% came from outside of San Francisco. This figure is up from 61% in 2013. Of that 71%, 51% had lived in San Francisco for less than 10 years before becoming homeless; 11% had only lived in San Francisco for a year before becoming homeless.^[35] By 2016, according to a report by urban planning and research organization SPUR, San Francisco had the third highest per capita homelessness rate (0.8% or 8 in 1000 persons) of all large US cities, as well as the third highest percentage of unsheltered homeless (55%).^[51] ("Unsheltered" means sleeping somewhere not designated as a permanent living location, and includes tents, automobiles, and RV's, but does not include people staying in designated homeless shelters.)

In 2018, San Francisco's homeless camps drew scrutiny from a UN special rapporteur, Leilani Farha, who visited different camps and spoke to residents. Farha compared the conditions she witnessed to those of Mumbai,^[52] stating: "...I'm sorry, California is a rich state, by any measures, the United States is a rich country, and to see these deplorable conditions that the government is allowing, by international human rights standards, it's unacceptable. I'm guided by human rights law."^[74] She also decried the city for conducting "tent sweeps" whereby encampments are cleared: "It's damaging because they always have to move.They're treated like nonentities. Sometimes they say [belongings are] put in storage, but more often they'll dump everyone's possessions into one dumpster. It's horrible. It's not dignified. The people have nowhere to go. It's illogical. It's tragic."^[53]

Richmond

As of 2017, the Richmond Police Department (RPD) have noted at least 76 encampments and about 800 individuals living homeless. About 50% of homeless residents lost their Richmond homes and ended up on the streets.^[54] According to the City of Richmond’s memo on Homelessness Policies and Initiatives, “Richmond is already Contra Costa County’s predominant location for homeless shelter beds.” With a population of about 110,000 people, about 9.7% of the total population of the Contra Costa County, Richmond is a 55.4% contributor to Contra Costa County homeless shelter beds. Homeless persons from across the Bay Area are sent to Richmond shelters, thus making it hard for the City of Richmond to deal with the city’s own homeless population.^[55]^[56]

Berkeley

Oakland

In 2016, the Oakland City Council declared a shelter crisis. Although, no action was taken beyond this declaration to address the problem. ^[58]

The impact of homelessness

"Individuals and families who have lost a safe place of residence are vulnerable to physical threats such as exposure and violence, and the psychosocial threats related to high stress associated with mental health problems and substance abuse." ^[59] Homelessness has been associated as a predictor of the use of heroin and recent nonfatal overdose among street-recruited injection heroin users in the San Francisco Bay Area, calling for more targeted interventions to decrease this risk association.^[60] Both positive and negative stigma management strategies were found to be used among homeless youth in the SF Bay Area—some more inclusive such as building community through friendships, while others were more exclusionary such as "verbal denigration and physical and sexual posturing".^[61]

Due to the high homeless population, San Francisco streets are littered with drug syringes, trash, and feces, resulting in a level of contamination "...much greater than communities in Brazil or Kenya or India".^[62] The city spends approximately 30 million dollars per year on the removal of feces and contaminated needles.^[62]

Of the 400,000 needles distributed monthly, San Francisco receives around 246,000 back — meaning that there are roughly 150,000 discarded needles unaccounted for each month - or nearly 2 million per year.^[63]

After a visit to San Francisco's homeless camps in January 2018, UN special rapporteur Leilani Farha stated that the belief that drug abuse was a root cause of homelessness was not generally true, that the reverse in fact is more prevalent, whereby "Most people on the streets are living with some sort of 'structural trauma,' meaning they have lost their job, can't afford housing, been evicted by a landlord. The structural trauma causes deeply personal effects that can lead to living on the street that triggers drug use."^[53]

San Francisco's homeless youth experience high rates of psychiatric disorders and substance use and have been know to use the following substances: cannabis, cocaine, narcotics (heroine and methadone) and stimulants (methamphetamine and amphetamine).^[64]

Current efforts to address the issue by region

The creative communication strategies and practices of the Coalition on Homelessness, Poor News Network, and Media Alliance have both empowered voices from impoverished San Francisco Bay Area communities, and also enabled the development of "counter-public spheres" that work in tangent with mainstream media outlets.^[65]

Former state Assemblyman Mike Gatto, in an opinion piece, proposed that a new form of detention be created as a method to force drug addicted and mentally ill homeless persons (which make up two-thirds of California's homeless population) off the streets and into treatment.^[66]

California (Overview)

California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC)

Ongoing efforts include the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC). Established in 1988 as a private nonprofit organization, it aims to sustain access to affordable housing through project partnerships with other non-profits and government housing agencies, in addition to being a resource for affordable housing policy efforts. CHPC has been successful in preserving more than 60,000 homes through over $12 billion in private and public partnerships.^[67]

We Count California!

"We Count California!" is a collaborative effort between the California Homeless Youth Project and the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health to combat the issue of homeless youth being undercounted during the annual point-in-time homeless counts which are crucial for federal funding of homeless support programs. They hope to achieve more accurate counts by providing trainings and statewide technical assistance activities to support California communities toward improved youth inclusion.^[68]

San Francisco

Legislative efforts

In 2014, the City of San Francisco spent $167 million annually on housing homeless residents.^[69] By 2016, total spending (including housing and treatment) was believed to be $241 million annually.^[70] However, much of this spending is focused on housing the formerly homeless, or those at risk, and not the currently homeless. The city's shelter program has approximately 1,200 beds, and several hundred people are on a waitlist to be housed.^[70] Even with 1,200 shelter beds and several hundred on waiting list, most homeless avoid the shelter for various reasons such as: overcrowding, safety, and rules that, among other things, separate people experiencing homelessness from their possessions, pets, and loved ones. In 2015, the Navigation Center shelter was created to address these issues.^[70]

There have been increasing efforts to keep the homeless away from the public eye, through forced removal, or harassment sweeps. These efforts have come to be known as the "war on the homeless".^[71] The Homeless Coalition has been an active body in the fight for homeless rights and decriminalization of the homeless. The "Right to Rest Act of the Homeless Bill of Rights Campaign" has been a large effort to allow the homeless to sit, rest and sleep on sidewalks and in public. This effort is seen as essential especially when there is a significant shortage in affordable housing.^[72] San Francisco’s policies enacted towards homeless individuals have been criticized by homeless rights advocates and was listed as the eleventh least desirable city in the U.S to be homeless.^[73] There are 23 city infractions that are known as “quality of life” crimes because they criminalize actions that would be legal on private property, thereby disproportionately affecting homeless individuals.^[74] Examples include the prohibition of sleeping in public, overnight parking restrictions, and anti-loitering ordinances. The city enforces these laws by issuing an average of over 3,000 citations a year.^[74] The price of enforcing quality of life crimes for San Francisco was $20.6 million in 2015.^[75] These citations typically involve fines that can be difficult for impoverished homeless residents to pay, leading to only 7% of fines paid in 2000.^[74] Unpaid fines can often result in arrests and criminal records, which makes it more difficult to gain employment and encourages avoidance of future contact with social services due to fear of punishment.^[76] Quality of life crimes have become so prevalent that the San Francisco Police Department launched Operation Outreach to specialize in homeless related crime.^[77] The program’s intended purpose is to collaborate with other city agencies like the Department of Public Health and the Department of Public Works connect members of the homeless community with social services and resources.

California SB 1045

In September 2018, California SB 1045 was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. This bill will take effect on January 1, 2019 and would initiate a five-year pilot program ending on January 1, 2024. The goal of this legislation, as authored by State Senator Scott Wiener, is to improve the health of persons suffering from substance abuse disorders or severe mental illness and has the potential to directly impact the homeless population of San Francisco.^[78] Under a pilot program of SB 1045, the bill would permit the board of supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, the County of San Diego and the City and County of San Francisco to appoint a conservator for an individual who is incapable of caring or making decisions for themselves through the order of a probate court. These provinces are also required to provide the following services and resources, which include, but are not limited to adequate community housing, outpatient mental health counseling, psychiatric assistance, access to medications and substance use disorder services. Individuals who have had eight or more 5150 holds within a year would be considered for conservatorship.^[79] San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced that she plans to add 70 to 90 new beds for these prospective patients at the city's navigation centers and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital before November 2019.^[80]

With the support of Senator Weiner and Mayor Breed, San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman introduced a bill in October 2018 that outlined the conservatorship criteria for the city. The bill mimics Wiener's legislation as it identifies those who are homeless and frequently utilize emergency services due to severe mental illness or substance-abuse disorder as likely candidates for intervention. It is estimated that SB 1045 along with local legislation would impact between 50 and 100 people in San Francisco.^[81] Local homeless organizations and health centers have prompted concerns over criminalizing homelessness and the mentally ill as the legislation only targets those without homes.^[82]

Other oppositions have noted that the bill is too narrow and only covers a small subset of the population that suffers from substance abuse or mental disorder.^[83]

Additional critics, including the Coalition on Homelessness, argue that the bill violates a person's civil liberties and his/her freedom to control and make medical decisions about his/her own body. The Coalition on Homelessness advocates for Proposition C on the November 2018 ballot.^[84] Proposition C would collect up to $300 million per year to fund services for the city's homeless individuals through taxes on San Francisco's biggest businesses. In November 2018, Proposition C was approved by 61% of San Francisco's voters; however, this proposition has been put on hold while the state debates whether a simple-majority is enough to pass the proposition or whether a two-thirds supermajority should be required.^[85]

Navigation center

The Navigation Center started as a pilot intervention program and is a collaboration between the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Interfaith Council. It is funded by a $3 million anonymous donation and is based on the belief that people experiencing homelessness would be more receptive to utilizing shelters if they were "allowed to stay with their possessions, partners, and pets.” The first Navigation Center opened in 2015 at a former school building in the Mission District. Unlike other shelters, the Navigation Center allows clients to come and go as they please and tries to get them permanent housing within ten days.^[86] Navigation Center provides otherwise unsheltered residents of San Francisco with room and board while case managers work to connect them to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Navigation Center is different from traditional housing units in that it has few barriers to entry and intensive case management.^[87]

There are 4 Navigation Centers so far in San Francisco. As of January 2017, they have provided shelter for 1,150 highly vulnerable people, and 72% of these guests have exited to housing.^[88] Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing determines access to Navigation Centers on a case-by-case basis. The most important goal of Navigation Centers, according to the stakeholders, is to have its guests rapid exits to housing.^[89] Due to the success of this program, The Board of Supervisors have voted for The City to negotiate a lease with Caltrans to open two Navigation Centers on state property.^[90]

Social innovation

There has been an increasing need for solutions to social issues such as homelessness since the 1990s, these solutions are not anymore solely based in government reliance or the economic market, rather through volunteerism and charity. Unfortunately, there are many limiting factors of these efforts. "Social Innovation Clusters", SI Clusters as they are called have emerged as an alternative framework for creating solutions through social innovation. SI clusters are a result of socially-oriented organizations working in close proximity with like-minded companies, which has developed more ideas for social entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy. While these ideas have developed well, the social issues like homelessness in the Bay Area are still prevalent.^[91]

Richmond

Legislative efforts

In 2017, the Richmond City Council voted unanimously to establish a Richmond city homeless task force. This task force attempts to address the rising homeless crisis in Richmond, and develop methods to disrupt the cycle of homelessness. As of now there is a list of common themes that the task force wants to work towards addressing, including: Need for more accurate data, community education and engagement, more emergency housing services, long-term housing solutions, mental and behavioral health, and self-sufficiency pathways. The City of Richmond has legislation in place to allow homeless to sleep in public without worry of citation when shelters are overcrowded.^[92]^[54] Additionally, the City of Richmond has also engaged UC Berkeley students involved in the THIMBY (Tiny House In My Backyard) project with a pilot program for developing a model for six transitional tiny homes to be placed in Richmond.^[93] This is in-line with developing efforts in the SF Bay Area to use micro-apartments and tiny houses—the Tiny House Movement—in combating the housing crisis.^[94]^[95]^[96]

Anti-homeless ordinances

San Francisco

San Francisco's sit-lie law, Section 168 of San Francisco's Police Code, aim to criminalize homelessness by making it "unlawful to sit or lie down upon a public sidewalk" "during the hours seven (7:00) a.m. and eleven (11:00) p.m." Without many places to go during the day, homeless people are often subjected to law enforcement and sometimes even receiving multiple violations in the same day. Violations result in a fine between $50 to $100 or must be petitioned in court which presents even larger barriers to homeless individuals.^[97]

Berkeley

On December 1, 2015, new ordinances passed that prohibits people lying in planter beds, tying possessions to poles or trees or keeping them within two feet of a tree-well or planter, taking up more than two square feet of space with belongings, and keeping a shopping cart in one place for more than an hour during the day. It also further penalizes public urination and defecation. Many of these restrictions make it extremely difficult for homeless individuals to store and protect their belongings.^[98]

See also

References

1. ^{{cite news|url=http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article168107042.html|title=How California’s housing crisis happened|last=Hart|first=Angela|date=2017-08-21|work=|accessdate=2018-01-28|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171001045844/http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article168107042.html|archive-date=2017-10-01|dead-url=no|publisher=The Sacramento Bee|pages=|quote=Cities that have seen dramatic rent increases, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, attribute their spikes in homelessness directly to a state housing shortage that has led to an unprecedented affordability crisis.}}
2. ^{{ cite news | url=http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-s-homelessness-crisis-moves-to-the-12182026.php | title=California’s homelessness crisis expands to country | last1=Fagan | first1=Kevin | last2=Graham | first2=Alison | publisher=San Francisco Chronicle | date=2017-09-08 | accessdate=2017-12-12 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911021612/http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-s-homelessness-crisis-moves-to-the-12182026.php | archive-date=2017-09-11 | dead-url=no }}
3. ^{{cite web|last1=Arnold|first1=Althea|last2=Crowley|first2=Sheila|last3=Bravve|first3=Elina|last4=Brundage|first4=Sarah|last5=Biddlecombe|first5=Christine|title=Out of Reach 2014: National Low Income Housing Coalition|url=http://nlihc.org/oor/2014|website=National Low Income Housing Coalition|accessdate=22 February 2018}}
4. ^{{Cite web|url = http://www.sfgate.com/homeless/|title = Shame of the City - Homeless in San Francisco|date = |accessdate = |website = |publisher = SF Gate|last = |first = }}
5. ^{{Cite book|title = The Rough Guide to San Francisco & the Bay Area|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=D2OitcAAMYkC|publisher = Penguin|date = 2009-01-01|isbn = 9781848360600|first = Nick|last = Edwards|first2 = Mark|last2 = Ellwood|page = 112}}
6. ^{{ cite news | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/SF-s-appalling-street-life-repels-residents-13038748.php | doi= | title=SF’s appalling street life repels residents — now it’s driven away a convention | last1=Matier | first1=Phil | last2=Ross | first2=Andy | publisher=San Francisco Chronicle | date=2018-07-02 | accessdate=2018-07-05 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180704001529/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/SF-s-appalling-street-life-repels-residents-13038748.php | archive-date=2018-07-04 | dead-url=no | pages= | quote=

The doctors group told the San Francisco delegation that while they loved the city, postconvention surveys showed their members were afraid to walk amid the open drug use, threatening behavior and mental illness that are common on the streets.

}}
7. ^{{cite web|title=Bay Area Census -- San Francisco City and County|url=http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm|website=www.bayareacensus.ca.gov|accessdate=22 February 2018}}
8. ^{{cite web|title=POVERTY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA|url=https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/poverty-brief-2015-03.pdf|website=Joint Venture Silicon Valley|publisher=Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies|accessdate=18 March 2018}}
9. ^¹Wolch, Jennifer R., and M. J. Dear. Malign Neglect: Homelessness in an American City. Jossey-Bass, 1993.
10. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/3-recessions-2-bubbles-and-a-baby|title=30+ Years of Bay Area Real Estate Cycles|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}
11. ^Dear, Michael J. Landscapes of Despair: from Deinstitutionalization to Homelessness. Princeton Univ Press, 2016.
12. ^¹Green, Mathew. “TIMELINE: The Frustrating Political History of Homelessness in San Francisco.” KQED, 23 Mar. 2018, www.kqed.org/lowdown/22644.
13. ^¹²Parson, Sean Michael. “An Ungovernable Force? Food Not Bombs, Homeless Activism and Politics in San Francisco, 1988--1995.” University of Oregon, Sept. 2010, hdl.handle.net/1794/11179.
14. ^Ward, Brant, et al. “Homelessness Looks the Same as It Did 20 Years Ago.” San Francisco Chronicle, projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/overview/.
15. ^“San Francisco's Mayor Ousts Homeless Camp.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 July 1990, www.nytimes.com/1990/07/06/us/san-francisco-s-mayor-ousts-homeless-camp.html.
16. ^“San Francisco to Evict Last Homeless.” UPI, UPI, 5 July 1990, www.upi.com/Archives/1990/07/05/San-Francisco-to-evict-last-homeless/2178647150400/.
17. ^Amnesty International. “Amnesty International Seeks Further Information on ‘Food Not Bombs’ Activists Arrested in San Francisco, USA.” 28 Oct. 1994, www.foodnotbombs.net/amnesty_letter.html.
18. ^Heather MacDonald, San Francisco's Matrix Program for the Homeless, 14 Crim. Just. Ethics 2 (1995)
19. ^McIntyre, Jennifer, and Alissa Rikker. FROM BEYOND SHELTER TO BEHIND BARS. 1993 www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/from_beyond_shelter_to_behind_bars.pdf.
20. ^¹²³⁴Gowan, Teresa. Hobos, Hustlers, and Backsliders : Homeless in San Francisco, University of Minnesota Press, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/lib/berkeley-ebooks/detail.action?docID=557532.
21. ^¹Maya Nordberg, Jails Not Homes: Quality of Life on the Street of San Francisco, 13 Hastings Women's L.J. 261 (2002)
22. ^Claiborne, William. “SAN FRANCISCO'S HOMELESS EXPECTED COMPASSION, BUT GOT A CRACKDOWN.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 28 Nov. 1997, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/11/28/san-franciscos-homeless-expected-compassion-but-got-a-crackdown/0111d2fc-a70b-4fb7-9029-67ca2cbfb485/
23. ^Davis, John. Perspectives in Black Politics and Black Leadership. University Press of America, 2007.
24. ^Mullin, Megan, et al. “City Caesars?” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 40, no. 1, 2004, pp. 19–43.SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1078087404265391.
25. ^"About the Mayor". The City and County of San Francisco. Archived from the original on 2007-11-23.
26. ^Newsom, Gavin Christopher, and Lisa Dickey. Citizenville: How to Take the Town Square Digital and Reinvent Government. Penguin Books, 2014.
27. ^Riley, E. D. “Cash Benefits Are Associated with Lower Risk Behavior Among the Homeless and Marginally Housed in San Franciscos.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, vol. 82, no. 1, 2005, pp. 142–150., doi:10.1093/jurban/jti015.
28. ^Murphy, Stacey. “‘Compassionate’ Strategies of Managing Homelessness: Post-Revanchist Geographies in San Francisco.” Antipode, vol. 41, no. 2, 2009, pp. 305–325., doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00674.x.
29. ^Gonzales, Richard. “S.F. Paying to Send the Homeless Back Home.” NPR, NPR, 17 Feb. 2006, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5221311.
30. ^Abbott, Kerry, and Shelagh Little. San Francisco 2007 Homeless Count . San Francisco Human Services Agency , Mar. 2007, hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2007-SF-PIT-Report.pdf.
31. ^Huey, Laura. "Homelessness and the ‘Exclusive Society’Thesis: Why It Is Important to ‘Think Local’to ‘Act Local’on Homelessness Issues." European Journal of Homelessness _ Volume (2009).
32. ^Herring, Chris, and Dilara Yarbrough. "Punishing the Poorest: How San Francisco’s Criminalization of Homelessness Perpetuates Poverty." UC Berkeley Human Rights Center and the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness (2015).
33. ^Collins, Terry, and Associated Press. SF Voters Approve Sit/Lie Ban on Sidewalks. Fox News, 4 Nov. 2010, web.archive.org/web/20101105170951/www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2010%2F11%2F03%2Fstate%2Fn120338D96.DTL.
34. ^{{cite journal|title=Homelessness in the Bay Area|journal=SPUR|date=23 October 2017|issue=560|url=http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-23/homelessness-bay-area|accessdate=11 May 2018}}
35. ^¹{{Cite web|url = http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/02/san-franciscos-homeless-crisis-is-homegrown.html|title = San Francisco's Homeless Crisis is Homegrown and a Catch-22|date = 2016-02-10|website = SocketSite|access-date = 2016-03-09}}
36. ^¹²³⁴⁵Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space Vol 31, Issue 7, pp. 1259 - 1278
37. ^¹Kusmer, Kenneth L. Down and out, on the Road: the Homeless in American History. Oxford University Press, 2003.
38. ^{{cite web|url=http://iurd.berkeley.edu/uploads/Displacement_Lit_Review_Final.pdf|title=Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment: A Literature Review|last1=Zuk|first1=Miriam|last2=Bierbaum|first2=Ariel|publisher=University of California, Berkeley. University of California, Los Angeles.|accessdate=14 April 2018|last3=Chapple|first3=Karen|last4=Gorska|first4=Karolina|last5=LoukaitouSideris|first5=Anastasia|last6=Ong|first6=Paul|last7=Thomas|first7=Trevor}}
39. ^Bhatia, Rajiv. “Protecting Health Using an Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study of San Francisco Land use Decisionmaking.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 97, no. 3, 2007, pp. 406-413., doi: 10.2105/ajph.2005.073817.
40. ^{{cite journal|last1=Barton|first1=Stephen E.|title=Land Rent and Housing Policy: A Case Study of the San Francisco Bay Area Rental Housing Market|jstor=41329166|journal=American Journal of Economics and Sociology|volume=70|issue=4|pages=845–873|date=2011|doi=10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00796.x}}
41. ^Arnold, Crowley, Bravve, Brundage, Biddlecombe, Althea, Sheila, Elina Bravve, Sarah,Christine (2014). "OUT OF REACH 2014 Twenty-Five Years Later, The Affordable Housing Crisis Continues.
42. ^{{Cite journal|last=Maharawal|first=Manissa M|date=September 2017|title=Black Lives Matter, gentrification and the security state in the San Francisco Bay Area|journal=Anthropological Theory|volume=17|issue=3|pages=338–364|doi=10.1177/1463499617732501|issn=1463-4996}}
43. ^{{Cite journal|last=Whittle|first=Henry J.|last2=Palar|first2=Kartika|last3=Hufstedler|first3=Lee Lemus|last4=Seligman|first4=Hilary K.|last5=Frongillo|first5=Edward A.|last6=Weiser|first6=Sheri D.|date=October 2015|title=Food insecurity, chronic illness, and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area: An example of structural violence in United States public policy|journal=Social Science & Medicine|volume=143|pages=154–161|doi=10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.027|issn=0277-9536}}
44. ^¹²³⁴John Mangin, The New Exclusionary Zoning, vol 25 Stanford Law & Policy Review 91 (2014).
45. ^Katherine C. Devers & J. G. West, Exclusionary Zoning and Its Effect on Housing Opportunities for the Homeless, 4 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 349 (2014).
46. ^Minkler, M. (1985). Building supportive ties and sense of community among the inner-city elderly: The Tenderloin senior outreach project. Health Education Quarterly. 12(4):303-314.
47. ^{{cite news|title=Bussed out: how America moves thousands of homeless people around the country|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study|accessdate=11 May 2018|work=The Guardian|agency=Outside in America|publisher=The Guardian|date=20 December 2017}}
48. ^{{cite web|title=SF reaches $400K settlement proposal in Nevada patient-dumping case|url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-reaches-400k-settlement-proposal-in-nevada-patient-dumping-case/|website=The San Francisco Examiner|publisher=The San Francisco Examiner|accessdate=11 May 2018}}
49. ^{{Cite news|url = http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spending-on-homeless-exceeds-many-5416839.php|title = S.F. spending on homeless exceeds many departments' budgets|last = Matier|first = Phillip|date = April 21, 2014|work = SFGate|accessdate = June 5, 2014}}
50. ^{{Cite web|url = http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/the-outsiders|title = The Outsiders|last = Kamiya|first = Gary|date = 2015-02-28|website = San Francisco Magazine|access-date = 2016-03-09}}
51. ^¹{{ cite web | url=http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-23/homelessness-bay-area | title=Homelessness in the Bay Area | last=Turner | first=Molly | publisher=San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association | date=2017-10-23 | accessdate=2018-02-05 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028061102/http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-23/homelessness-bay-area | archive-date=2017-10-28 | dead-url=no | pages= | quote= }}
52. ^{{Cite article|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/un-rapporteur-homeless-san-francisco-california| title=San Francisco or Mumbai? UN envoy encounters homeless life in California| author=Alastair Gee| publisher=The Guardian| date=January 22, 2018| access-date=August 6, 2018}}
53. ^¹²{{cite article| url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Leilani-Farah-UN-rapporteur-homelessness-SF-CA-12519117.php| title=UN expert on San Francisco homelessness: 'I couldn't help but be completely shocked'| author=Amy Graff| publisher=sfgate.com| date=January 24, 2018| access-date=August 6, 2018}}
54. ^¹{{cite news|last1=Herbst|first1=Meghan|title=With over 800 people on the streets every night, Richmond’s homeless task force brainstorms ways to tackle a persistent problem|url=http://richmondconfidential.org/2017/11/30/with-over-800-people-on-the-streets-every-night-richmonds-homeless-task-force-brainstorms-ways-to-tackle-a-persistent-problem/|accessdate=10 May 2018|publisher=Richmond Confidential|date=November 30, 2017}}
55. ^{{cite web|last1=Bissell|first1=Evan|last2=Moore|first2=Eli|title=Haas Institute housing report presents key policies for Richmond, CA {{!}} Haas Institute|url=https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/haas-institute-housing-report-presents-key-policies-richmond-ca|website=haasinstitute.berkeley.edu|publisher=Haas Institute for Fair and Inclusive Society|accessdate=11 May 2018}}
56. ^{{cite web|last1=Bissell|first1=Evan|last2=Moore|first2=Eli|title=Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond|url=https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_housingandbelongingrichmond_psprint_jan11.pdf|website=Haas Institute|publisher=Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley|accessdate=11 May 2018}}
57. ^{{Cite journal|last=Mitchell|first=Don|date=March 1992|title=Iconography and locational conflict from the underside|journal=Political Geography|volume=11|issue=2|pages=152–169|doi=10.1016/0962-6298(92)90046-v|issn=0962-6298}}
58. ^{{Cite journal|title=JSTOR|doi = 10.1163/1872-9037_afco_asc_558}}
59. ^{{cite journal|last1=Mcclendon|first1=Jennifer|last2=Lane|first2=Shannon|title=Handbook of Social Work Practice with Vulnerable and Resilient Populations|date=2014|volume=Homeless People|pages=345–365|doi=10.7312/gitt16362|jstor=10.7312/gitt16362|publisher=Columbia University Press|doi-broken-date=2019-03-13}}
60. ^{{cite journal|last1=Seal|first1=Karen H.|last2=Kral|first2=Alex H.|last3=Gee|first3=Lauren|last4=Moore|first4=Lisa D.|last5=Bluthenthal|first5=Ricky N.|last6=Lorvick|first6=Jennifer|last7=Edlin|first7=Brian R.|title=Predictors and Prevention of Nonfatal Overdose Among Street-Recruited Injection Heroin Users in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1998–1999|journal=American Journal of Public Health|date=November 2001|volume=91|issue=11|pages=1842–1846|doi=10.2105/ajph.91.11.1842|pmid=11684613|issn=0090-0036|pmc=1446888}}
61. ^{{cite journal|last1=Roschelle|first1=Anne R.|last2=Kaufman|first2=Peter|title=Fitting In and Fighting Back: Stigma Management Strategies among Homeless Kids|journal=Symbolic Interaction|date=2004|volume=27|issue=1|pages=23–46|doi=10.1525/si.2004.27.1.23|jstor=10.1525/si.2004.27.1.23}}
62. ^¹[https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Diseased-Streets-472430013.html NBC Bay Area: San Francisco – Diseased Streets]
63. ^{{Cite news|url=https://sf.curbed.com/2018/5/9/17336090/san-francisco-needles-syringes-exchange-numbers-sf|title=City Hall hands out 4.45 million syringes each year, says report|work=Curbed SF|access-date=2018-06-18}}
64. ^{{Cite journal|last=Quimby|first=Ernika G.|last2=Edidin|first2=Jennifer P.|last3=Ganim|first3=Zoe|last4=Gustafson|first4=Erika|last5=Hunter|first5=Scott J.|last6=Karnik|first6=Niranjan S.|date=2012-08-30|title=Psychiatric Disorders and Substance Use in Homeless Youth: A Preliminary Comparison of San Francisco and Chicago|journal=Behavioral Sciences|volume=2|issue=3|pages=186–194|doi=10.3390/bs2030186|pmid=25379220|issn=2076-328X}}
65. ^{{cite journal|last1=Kidd|first1=Dorothy|last2=Barker-Plummer|first2=Bernadette|title='Neither Silent Nor Invisible': Anti-Poverty Communication in the San Francisco Bay Area|journal=Development in Practice|date=2009|volume=19|issue=4/5|pages=479–490|jstor=27752088|doi=10.1080/09614520902866322}}
66. ^{{ cite web | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/14/opinion-why-building-more-shelters-wont-solve-homelessness/ | doi= | title=Opinion: Why building more shelters won't solve homelessness | last=Gatto | first=Mike | publisher=San Jose Mercury News | date=2018-06-14 | accessdate=2018-07-09 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180617203032/https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/14/opinion-why-building-more-shelters-wont-solve-homelessness/ | archive-date=2018-06-17 | dead-url=no | quote=

Two solutions would work. We need a new type of detention within the justice system – one dedicated to drug treatment and mental health. And we need to lengthen jail terms for misdemeanors. That may sound odd, but it’s rational. A misdemeanor is a crime for which someone spends 364 days or less in jail. But in big counties, if a person is convicted for a misdemeanor, that person may spend less than a day in jail. This is too short to conduct any meaningful assessment or intervention.

}}
67. ^{{cite web|url=https://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AHSC_Brief_June17_FINALv2.pdf|title=The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program: Collaborative Investments to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Strengthen Disadvantaged Communities|website=California Housing and Sustainable Communities Program|accessdate=22 February 2018}}
68. ^{{Cite journal|last=Lin|first=Jessica S.|last2=Petry|first2=Laura|last3=Hyatt|first3=Shahera|last4=Auerswald|first4=Colette|date=September 2017|title=We Count, California! A Statewide Capacity-Building Effort to Improve Youth Inclusion in California's Point-in-Time Homeless Counts|journal=World Medical & Health Policy|volume=9|issue=3|pages=285–306|doi=10.1002/wmh3.232|issn=1948-4682}}
69. ^Matier, Phillip (April 21, 2014). "S.F. spending on homeless exceeds many departments' budgets". SFGate. Retrieved June 5, 2014.
70. ^¹²Heather, Knight (2016-04-01). "What San Franciscans know about homeless isn't necessarily true". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2016-04-12.
71. ^{{cite journal|jstor=40239449|title=Downward Spiral: Homelessness and Its Criminalization|last1=Foscarinis|first1=Maria|date=1996|journal=Yale Law & Policy Review|volume=14|issue=1|pages=1–63}}
72. ^{{cite journal|jstor=i40159410|title=Vol. 20, No. 1, 2015 of Race, Poverty & the Environment on JSTOR}}
73. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/report.pdf|title=A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities|last=|first=|date=January 2006|website=|publisher=The National Coalition for the Homeless and The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=10 May 2018}}
74. ^¹²Fisher, Marina, et al. California’s New Vagrancy Laws: The Growing Enactment and Enforcement of Anti-Homeless Laws in the Golden State. Policy Advocacy Clinic Berkeley Law, 2015, California’s New Vagrancy Laws: The Growing Enactment and Enforcement of Anti-Homeless Laws in the Golden State, poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=126024068112006089067118077121099098039053020046074058007068113088084113006090004108037124118022010007121002112116107064097069012058074010000086113095126020096100048044017119085108110065104073126000003022110097118027098067116106006098002100083113125&EXT=pdf.
75. ^City and County of San Francisco, Budget and Legislative Analysis. Policy Analysis Report, 1 June 2016. sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56045-Budget%20and%20Legislative%20Analyst%20Report.Homelessness%20and%20Cost%20of%20Quality%20of%20Life%20Laws.Final.pdf
76. ^Forbes, Elaine Legislative Analyst Report - San Francisco's 'Quality of Life' Laws and Seattle's 'Civility' Laws City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors January 11, 2002 File No. 011704
77. ^{{cite web|title=Public Interaction with the Homeless {{!}} Police Department|url=https://sanfranciscopolice.org/public-interaction-homeless|website=sanfranciscopolice.org|publisher=San Francisco Police Department|accessdate=10 May 2018}}
78. ^{{Cite news|url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-prepared-compel-treatment-frequently-detained-homeless/|title=Mayor prepared to compel treatment for frequently detained homeless|work=The San Francisco Examiner|access-date=2018-11-01}}
79. ^{{cite web |title=SB-1045 Conservatorship: serious mental illness and substance use disorders |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1045 |website=California Legislative Information |accessdate=2 November 2018}}
80. ^{{cite web|url=https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/10/31/san-francisco-mayor-seeks-more-homeless-housing-through-conservatorship-law/|title=San Francisco Mayor Seeks More Homeless Housing Through Conservatorship Law|date=31 October 2018}}
81. ^{{cite web |last1=Roberts |first1=Donald |title=Expansion Of New Mental Health Beds |url=http://www.thesfnews.com/expansion-new-mental-health-beds/45891 |website=The SF News |accessdate=22 November 2018}}
82. ^{{cite web |last1=Sawyer |first1=Nuala |title=S.F. Moves to Enact Wiener's Conservatorship Bill |url=http://www.sfweekly.com/news/s-f-moves-to-enact-wieners-failed-conservatorship-bill/ |accessdate=2 November 2018}}
83. ^{{cite web |last1=Eskenazi |first1=Joe |url=https://missionlocal.org/2018/11/proposed-conservatorship-rules-are-too-narrow-for-proponents-too-broad-for-opponents-leaving-nobody-satisfied/ |title=Proposed San Francisco conservatorship rules are too narrow for proponents, too broad for opponents — leaving nobody satisfied |website=Mission Local |accessdate=22 November 2018}}
84. ^{{Cite news|url=https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/mayor-seeks-implement-new-conservatorship-law-homeless|title=Mayor Seeks To Implement New Conservatorship Law For Homeless|date=2018-11-01|work=San Francisco, CA Patch|access-date=2018-11-22}}
85. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-Mayor-Breed-takes-step-to-ensure-Prop-C-13405961.php|title=SF Mayor Breed takes step to ensure Prop. C homeless tax becomes reality|date=2018-11-20|work=SFChronicle.com|access-date=2018-11-22}}
86. ^{{Cite news|url=http://kalw.org/post/first-look-inside-san-franciscos-radical-attempt-end-homelessness#stream/0|title=The first look inside San Francisco's radical attempt to end homelessness|last=Pfeffer|first=Liz|access-date=2016-12-24}}
87. ^{{Cite web|url=http://hsh.sfgov.org/services/emergencyshelter/navigation-centers/|title=Navigation Centers – Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing|website=hsh.sfgov.org|access-date=2018-02-05}}
88. ^http://hsh.sfgov.org/services/emergencyshelter/navigation-centers/#_edn1
89. ^http://ecs-sf.org/_documents/Perspectives_NavCenter_Report4.pdf
90. ^http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-open-navigation-centers-caltrans-property/
91. ^{{cite journal|jstor=43295008|title=SOCIAL INNOVATION CLUSTER IN ACTION: A CASE STUDY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA|last1=Tanimoto|first1=Kanji|last2=Doi|first2=Masaatsu|date=2007|journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Commerce and Management|volume=41|issue=1 (41)|pages=1–17}}
92. ^{{cite news|title=Richmond Launches Task Force on Homelessness {{!}} Richmond Pulse|url=https://richmondpulse.org/2017/04/27/richmond-launches-task-force-on-homelessness/|accessdate=10 May 2018|work=richmondpulse.org|publisher=Richmond Pulse|date=April 27, 2017}}
93. ^{{cite web|last1=Hall|first1=Sam Omar|title=With laws changing, tiny homes may have a big effect on housing|url=http://richmondconfidential.org/2016/04/13/with-laws-changing-tiny-homes-may-have-a-big-effect-on-housing/|website=Richmond Confidential|publisher=Richmond Confidential|accessdate=11 May 2018}}
94. ^{{cite web|title=Tiny homes proposed for homeless in Richmond pilot project|url=http://www.ktvu.com/news/tiny-homes-proposed-for-homeless-in-richmond-pilot-project|website=KTVU|publisher=KTVU|accessdate=10 May 2018}}
95. ^{{cite web|title=Richmond Experiments With Tiny Houses for Homeless {{!}} Richmond Pulse|url=https://richmondpulse.org/2017/07/27/richmond-experiments-with-tiny-houses-for-homeless/|website=richmondpulse.org|publisher=Richmond Pulse|accessdate=10 May 2018}}
96. ^{{cite web|last1=Martichoux|first1=Alix|title=Is tiny living working? Bay Area residents share challenges of micro homes and bus life|url=https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Bay-Area-tiny-home-micro-apartment-living-in-bus-12390408.php|website=SFGate|publisher=SFGATE|accessdate=10 May 2018}}
97. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/a-cruel-and-unusual-way-to-regulate-the-homeless/|title=A Cruel and Unusual Way to Regulate the Homeless|last=Review|first=Stanford Law|website=Stanford Law Review|access-date=2019-01-17}}
98. ^{{Cite journal|last=Bacon|first=David|date=1 Jan 2016|title=Homeless Residents Build Intentional Community in Berkeley|url=|journal=Race, Poverty & the Environment|volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=32–39}}