San Francisco Unveils Racist, Expensive, Useless Homeless Plan
Tales From the Garbage (Homeless and Supportive Housing) Department
San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH), with an annual budget of over $600 million, rolled out their latest plan to reduce homelessness in the city. “Home by the Bay” is 89 pages of trash. Shireen McSpadden, the department’s executive director is responsible for the twaddle.
Mayor London Breed gave it her stamp of approval. This was a mistake. Even after a cursory glance she should have pushed it back at McSpadden and said, “Do over. Now.”
It's obvious to just about every citizen and visitor that San Francisco’s homeless crisis is not driven by discrimination, job loss or lack of housing, but primarily untreated addiction and mental illness.
Heavy on Racism, Light on Solutions
People from all ethnicities come to San Francisco in search of cheap, potent drugs. Young and old. White collar and blue collar. They come from caring families and abusive families. Every race, every background. Too many end up in an encampment, huddled in a doorway, or sprawled out on a sidewalk. Technically they are “the homeless” but in reality they are “the sick.”
Yet the department launches it’s plan with:
“There are also deep racial inequities in who experiences homelessness in San Francisco due to a long history of structural racism and inequitable treatment that has blocked access to housing and other wealth-building domains for communities of color. Our work must redress these racial inequities in access to housing and center the communities that are most marginalized so we may create a more just society.”
With that, we are assured that the plan is dead in the water. No positive change will be made in our neighborhoods with this focus. Individuals who are hurting and dying will not receive the help they need. And poor communities that are the most racially diverse in the city will continue to be hardest hit because crime and squalor won’t stop.
It goes on:
“In order to heal and strengthen our collective response to homelessness, we must acknowledge the aspects of our collective culture - privilege, power, race, inequality - that have caused past harm, and intentionally focus on the increased inclusion and well-being of people who have been excluded.”
Treat everyone fairly and with dignity. It's as simple as that. An HSH insider (who chooses to be anonymous) explained:
“During the assessment we collect a demographic profile and whether they are placed on the housing waiting list for permanent, supportive housing, which is determined based on individual mental/physical health, income, and chronicity of homelessness. HSH then selects who gets housing.
How do they select individuals based on race? It leads to a perception of unfairness because it houses people not based on the merits of their true conditions and the intersectionality of their race but through an arbitrary self-reported process, that the body who makes that choice never sees the individual themselves.”
In fact, there are so many duds in this plan that it's hard to identify the most egregious. Some, however, emerge as particularly bad because they will only serve to bog down the implementation of necessary changes.
For example:
“In the delivery of all programs and services, it will be essential to assess whether every process, policy, and engagement is furthering racial equity or hindering its progress.”
Why not just give people the proper care in order of the most needy? We can, but that would be too easy; too effective. Too equitable.
Asinine - Not Ambitious - Goals
The strategic plan to stem homelessness has some of the weirdest aspirations ever put on paper.
They are:
Decreasing Homelessness: Reduce the number of people who are unsheltered by 50% and reduce the total number of people experiencing homelessness by 15%.
Not only is this is an insultingly low goal, it does not acknowledge the influx of addicts-turned homeless. For every one they house, another two arrive.
Reducing Racial Inequities and Other Disparities: Demonstrate measurable reductions in racial inequities and other disparities in the experience of homelessness and the outcomes of City programs for preventing and ending homelessness.
Everybody deserves assistance when they are down and out and it should not be parsed out by skin color or identity.
Increasing Number of People Exiting Homelessness: Actively support at least 30,000 people to move from homelessness into permanent housing.
At last count, there were 7,754 people living on the streets and in shelters. Why is the department planning on giving free housing to them plus 22,246 more? This makes no sense, financially or measurably.
Supporting People to Succeed in Housing: Ensure that at least 85% of people who exit homelessness do not experience it again.
Without addressing the underlying issues, many who are placed into permanent housing will soon be back on the streets. Others will die of overdose in their new, supportive homes.
My source notes a deep flaw in this specific goal:
“The plan does not also address the cross section of treatment and housing. Many of the clients we place in housing are severely addicted to fentanyl, regardless of how they got in. It’s an inappropriate placement and puts undue distress and burden on service providers and property management that aren’t running a treatment facility. It goes beyond the scope of everyone’s duties and abilities to care for them. It leads to poor health outcomes and unsafe working conditions and burnout”
Preventing Homelessness: Provide prevention services to at least 18,000 people at risk of losing their housing and becoming homeless.
On the surface this sounds good, however the convoluted “lets just study it!” explanation of this goal dashes that hope:
“As the City scales its efforts to provide homelessness prevention services and eviction prevention services and adds a focus on housing problem solving services for people at the very cusp of becoming homeless, it will be critically important to document the scale of those efforts and to analyze and assess demographic information about the households who are receiving such forms of assistance.”
Bizarre Projected Costs
It is hard not to conclude that securing department financing is at the heart of this plan - not addressing the real problems, and certainly not ending homelessness. If put into place, there would be no discernible improvements in our communities.
As for how much this plan is projected to cost, hold on to your wallets:
At least $607 million in additional funding during the five-year timeframe
A minimum of $217 million in additional funding annually, thereafter, increasing with inflation over time, to sustain the new investments
The city doesn't have the capital available, but the department promises to pursue the funding with zest.
A Five Month Plan to End Homelessness?
It's easy to rip the ridiculous Home by the Bay to philosophical and logical tatters, but it’s also terribly sad. It’s obvious that this plan took time, resources, and taxpayer money to create.
So what should we have instead? What would make a major difference in a much shorter span of time than five years? Surely intelligent people with real world experience can offer better ideas than San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.
Please allow me to simplify the issue, for easier understanding what is the cause, as you clearly can see and personally experience the effect. Growing government, subsidy programs, that is the problem. With every single new government subsidy or program, there is someone whom is financially incentivize to perpetuate these programs, in order to continue skimming off the top or enjoying gainful employment. They don't want to fix anything, because they get paid to perpetuate the problem which assures their own continued financial prosperity. Get your mind around it, people are greedy, and those people are absolutely attracted to the government, the place with the least fiscal oversight and the most available flex money to spend. The more money they throw at these problems, the worse they will get, guaranteed. Let's get back to the deportation and border wall argument, because where do you think the drugs come from.
Thank you, Erica. You will wake up the voters of our City why people like this ED of DHSH should get the boot, along with City Hall Pols who fund her disfunction.