“To Determine the Extent and Cost of the Enforcement of ‘ Quality of Life’ Ordinances
Against Homeless Individuals in San Francisco during the Newsom Administration (January 2004-August 2007).”
It simply cycles homeless people in and out of the criminal justice system. The last 14 years of this police approach to homelessness in San Francisco has proven beyond any doubt to be totally ineffective. And we have spent tens of millions of dollars over these 14 years in implementing this failed policy…and $7.8 million in just the last 3 ½ years. Mayor Newsom: “If the status quo is not working, it must be changed.” That’s right. This failed policy must be changed.
Q: With all of the improvements that this City has already implemented with respect to housing and homelessness, why focus your attention on citations/arrests which have been going on for years?
San Francisco’s overall Policy on Homelessness is contradictory. Part of the policy is compassionate and just. The other part is cruel and unjust. On the one hand, the City compassionately seeks to aid homeless people. On the other hand, The City cites, arrests, drags through the courts and jails these same individuals. It is simply morally wrong to criminalize people whose dire poverty has reduced them to a life of misery on our harsh and dangerous streets. The City must acknowledge this moral imperative and do the right thing!
Q: Aren’t these laws protecting the public?
Violent criminals are a much greater threat to public
safety than a homeless person sleeping in a public space. The public
is not protected when police
time and attention are being misallocated to a futile and wasteful policy
("quality of life" ordinance enforcement) that does little more
than harass poor people.
This misallocation of law enforcement personnel results also in clogging
the courts and adding to the overcrowded situation in our jails. (See “Why
the citation process is so costly” included in the press packet.)
Q: ‘Homeless camps’ can quickly become serious public health hazards. If the police cease efforts to dismantle these camps, won’t this City be inviting such health hazards?
Let us make this perfectly clear: Any person, homeless or not, who poses a genuine threat to the public welfare should be dealt with appropriately. This police action should be concomitant with a genuine provision of housing and services.
We are very well aware of the appalling conditions of some of the homeless encampments in Golden Gate Park and under our freeways: they are filthy, rodent infested, and strewn with needles, garbage and trash. The City has a responsibility to clean out such camps for the sake of the safety and health of the general public and we support their taking that action.
However, the vast majority of “camps” are not of that nature. Rather, they consist of crude cardboard structures simply rigged to provide protection from the elements. The constant police actions of breaking up these “camps” results in merely moving people to other areas, and it is simply wrong.
Q: How do you feel about the City’s current efforts to end homelessness through supportive housing?
We have always insisted that housing and adequate crucial services constitute the most basic solution to ending homelessness, so we certainly are pleased that The City has finally made that a priority.
We commend Mayor Newsom for prioritizing supportive housing and for moving the City forward through the Homeless Outreach Team and a variety of other essential social programs
Q: Has the issuance of ‘quality of life’ citations decreased, remained the same or increased since he took office?
The rate --and the consequent cost-- of enforcement of ‘quality of life’ ordinances against homeless people is greater now than in any previous mayoral administration, going back to the Matrix Policy under the Jordan Administration.
Q: Is there a trend in the costs of “aggressive enforcement?
Q: How is it possible that “intensive outreach” costs less than “aggressive enforcement”?
As we have detailed, the costs of having police cite, arrest, prosecute and jail homeless people is staggering. But we are not alone in this understanding. To quote San Francisco’s nationally lauded Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness: “Studies show that a chronically homeless person using emergency services or incarceration cost San Francisco an average of $61,000 each year. ...If their needs are met, the city will save money.” According to the plan, housing a chronically homeless person in supportive housing costs approximately $16,000 annually. A savings of $45,000 per year, PER PERSON.
A second striking illustration is that the City’s own estimates indicate that 2,900 chronically homeless people in our city would EACH qualify for Medical and federal SSI or SSDI benefits of up to $10,000 per year. But these individuals definitely need guidance through the intricate application system if they are to realize these benefits. If The City were to invest in hiring an adequate number of social outreach workers and related personnel, they could successfully connect these individuals to federal income benefits for which they qualify. That means that 2,900 individuals could be transferred OFF the City system and OFF City sidewalks permanently, not just for hours or days. It is not just the moral thing to do, but also the smart thing to do.
Q: Have you met with Mayor Newsom to discuss these matters?
We have hand-delivered to Mayor Newsom’s office five formal letters requesting meetings with him. We have received neither an acknowledgement nor a response of any kind to any of those requests, with the exception of our last response, which told us we could meet with Trent Rorher instead.
It is most unfortunate that this civic and interfaith group of San Franciscans
is consistently denied the opportunity to discuss our deep concerns with
the Chief Elected Official of our city. We have never been denied a request
for meetings with former mayors and other elected officials, or anyone else,
for that matter.
The position of Religious Witness leaders on what we see as an immoral aspect
of SF’s Policy on Homelessness is not about some philosophical or personal
differences. We affirm the positive steps Mayor Newsom has taken.