<\/p>\n
From left: Fernando Senegal, Leah Edwards, Shaun Aukland, Adam Hong and Lara Hashimoto are members of the SOMA West Neighborhood Association. The group filed a formal complaint with state authorities, alleging that San Francisco is unlawfully concentrating homelessness and mental health services in the neighborhood.<\/p>\n
Giselle Garza Lerma\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n
Whenever dystopian images of San Francisco flash across your social-media feed\u00a0\u2014 of tent encampments, naked people in the throes of a mental-health crisis, piles of needles or human waste\u00a0\u2014 there\u2019s a good chance they were taken in the Tenderloin or South of Market neighborhoods.\u00a0<\/p>\n
For decades, these two areas have served as de facto containment zones for San Francisco\u2019s most pervasive social woes; they account for 60% of the city\u2019s homeless shelters and transitional housing facilities<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pretty much everyone agrees this isn\u2019t fair. But there\u2019s far less consensus about how to fix it.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Residents and business owners have repeatedly<\/a> sued the city<\/a> over street conditions in the Tenderloin, with limited legal success<\/a>. Last year, Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin, introduced a bill to spread homelessness and mental health services across the city. The law, which went into effect in January, prioritizes funding shelters in neighborhoods with a higher percentage of homeless people than beds\u00a0\u2014 largely affluent, development-resistant communities on the west side\u00a0\u2014 and requires additional review<\/a> before new shelters can be put in the Tenderloin and SoMa.\u00a0<\/p>\n Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin, wrote a law that prioritizes funding shelters in neighborhoods with a higher percentage of homeless people than beds, with the goal of spreading services throughout the city.<\/p>\n Lea Suzuki\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n For one group of\u00a0SoMa residents, however, Mahmood\u2019s legislation didn\u2019t go nearly far enough.<\/p>\n San Francisco Chronicle Logo<\/p>\n Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n On Friday, the SOMA West Neighborhood Association filed a formal complaint<\/a> with state authorities, alleging that San Francisco has used a \u201cdeliberate, legislated containment strategy\u201d to create a \u201csegregated \u2026 impact zone\u201d in SoMa. The complaint, shared exclusively with me, argues that SoMa\u2019s \u201chyper-concentration of poverty\u201d is an intentional policy choice\u00a0\u2014 reflected not only in the high volume of homelessness and behavioral-health services but also poor public sanitation, dearth of trees and parks, slow police response times and zoning restrictions that limit market-rate housing and retail. These accusations are not necessarily new. But the association\u2019s proposed remedy is.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n It wants the state Department of Housing and Community Development to decertify the city\u2019s \u201chousing element\u201d\u00a0\u2014 its state-mandated blueprint to accommodate 82,000 new homes<\/a> by 2031\u00a0\u2014 and unleash the \u201cbuilder\u2019s remedy,\u201d which essentially gives developers free rein to ignore local zoning rules so long as their projects contain affordable units.\u00a0<\/p>\n It also wants the Office of the Attorney General\u2019s Housing Justice Team to \u201cpursue maximum civil penalties\u201d against the city until its \u201carbitrary, capricious, and exclusionary practices are completely dismantled.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n These demands turn San Francisco\u2019s typical housing debate on its head. Often, community members oppose market-rate housing. The SOMA West Neighborhood Association, by contrast, is asking for more.<\/p>\n \u201cWe want more people to come live in our neighborhood, and we want economic revival,\u201d Shaun Aukland, the complaint\u2019s principal author, told me.\u00a0<\/p>\n The complaint traces a trend line\u00a0of office tenants and businesses fleeing from SoMa<\/a> as shelters and behavioral health centers proliferated.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n For Alex Ludlum, executive director of the SOMA West Community Benefit District, this is evidence that \u201cSan Francisco spends tons of money on\u00a0SoMa West, and nearly all of it is spent to make the neighborhood worse for businesses and residents.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n After 17 years living in\u00a0SoMa West, neighborhood association member Lara Hashimoto told me she\u2019s fed up with the urine sprayed against the corners of her building, street harassment and open abuse of fentanyl. Just last week, she said, a clearly mentally unwell woman threw gravel at her face.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cHow are things going to improve when you have the government that\u2019s so hell-bent on putting everything in terms of the housing and services all in this neighborhood?\u201d Hashimoto asked me.<\/p>\n The complaint argues that San Francisco\u2019s concentration of services in SoMa violates California\u2019s law requiring local governments to \u201caffirmatively further fair housing\u201d or integrate historically segregated areas.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Attorney General\u2019s Office didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment. A state housing department spokesperson told me the agency \u201creviews all complaints received and cannot comment on open matters.\u201d<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor and state housing law expert, told me the state will \u201calmost certainly not\u201d revoke San Francisco\u2019s housing element approval based on this complaint\u00a0\u2014 because California\u2019s fair housing law is so broad and so vague<\/a> that cities can argue pretty much anything fulfills the requirement.<\/p>\n What the state might be more willing to investigate, Elmendorf said, is the complaint\u2019s request to block San Francisco from implementing its plan to comply with Senate Bill 79<\/a>, a state law going into effect on July 1<\/a> that makes it easier to build dense housing near transit<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n SB79 allows local governments to exempt \u201cindustrial employment hubs\u201d from upzoning, which San Francisco has proposed to do for three parcels in SoMa West. But, as the complaint notes, those parcels are also zoned for 100% affordable housing and homeless shelters.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The city can\u2019t have it both ways, the complaint argues: You can\u2019t block a parcel from being zoned for mixed-income housing by calling it industrial while simultaneously allowing shelters and low-income housing.\u00a0<\/p>\n A small homeless encampment is pictured in 2024 at 598 Brannan St. in the South of Market neighborhood.\u00a0 A complaint to the state alleges the city is intentionally creating a \u201chyper-concentration of poverty\u201d in the area.<\/p>\n Lea Suzuki\/The Chronicle<\/p>\n Dan\u00a0Sider, chief of staff for the San Francisco Planning Department, told me that western SoMa \u201chas had zoning intended to preserve the city\u2019s industrial base\u201d since the 1990s, a \u201cdirection\u201d that came \u201cdirectly from community planning processes relying on input from Western SoMa community members.\u201d A carve out was added for 100% affordable housing, which, like industrial uses, couldn\u2019t financially compete with offices or market-rate housing, Sider said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Protecting blue-collar industry is a laudable goal. But if there\u2019s no industry to occupy spaces, it can merely lead to the preservation of blight,\u00a0as Sausalito demonstrated with its decaying Marinship neighborhood<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n San Francisco Mayor Daniel\u00a0Lurie told me in a statement that \u201ctent encampments are at a record low<\/a> for the third time, more people on our streets are getting connected to treatment and recovery resources, and San Franciscans feel overwhelmingly<\/a> like our city is moving in the right direction for the first time in years.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But, he added, \u201cI see every day that we have so much more work to do.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Supervisor Matt Dorsey, who represents SoMa, said, \u201cThe city has a moral obligation to this neighborhood,\u201d adding that he sees the recent prioritization of drug-free and abstinence-based shelters<\/a> as a long-overdue step in improving street conditions<\/a>.<\/p>\n Residents like Aukland have heard such proclamations before, and they are\u00a0\u2014 rightfully\u00a0\u2014 skeptical<\/a>. The complaint is filled with quotes from city officials bemoaning the concentration of facilities in SoMa\u00a0\u2014 only to keep placing them there.\u00a0<\/p>\n Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.<\/p>\n Read more about our transparency and ethics policies<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n