Does every district need a shelter?
Disclaimer: The content on this page is submitted by community members and has not been reviewed or edited by ConnectedSF or ConnectedSF Institute. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of ConnectedSF or ConnectedSF Institute. This space is intended to allow the community to share their perspectives freely.
‘Geographical equity’ will do nothing to solve the root cause of homelessness in San Francisco
By: Griffin Lee
Image Generated with AI
What you don’t know today, you’ll want to know tomorrow.
Why?
Because a change in San Francisco law that a Board of Supervisors committee might approve on Wednesday, July 16, with the Board of Supervisors voting on it shortly thereafter, could have a lasting impact on the quality of life and well-being of the neighborhood in which you live.
District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood has proposed an ordinance requiring the city to approve one new homeless shelter, transitional housing facility, residential care, treatment facility, or behavioral health center outpatient clinic in each supervisorial district by June 30, 2026.
Yes. You read that right. Supervisor Mahmood wants to spread the homeless and drug problem throughout San Francisco, despite it being much less of an issue in most districts, compared to the one he oversees. In the proposal, Mahmood cites “geographic equity” as a key reason why the city should require each district to approve at least one shelter, behavioral health center, treatment facility, or transitional housing by June 30, 2026.
At a June 25 meeting of the Democratic Central Committee, Mahmood told members:
When services are concentrated in just a few neighborhoods, it constrains the local schools, businesses, and public spaces …. And it erodes trust. Importantly, it makes it harder for unhoused residents in other parts of the city to access care where they need it most directly. One reason people refuse shelter is that it is too far away from their current location. Unhoused residents in the Richmond refuse shelter directly because they don’t want to go to the Tenderloin.
He goes on to claim, “We have to meet people where they are. Not just geographically, but emotionally, which means offering care in every neighborhood.”
Let’s take a step back. How many people are experiencing homelessness in the Richmond District? Did they come from the Tenderloin and disperse out to the Richmond? If the former, then perhaps we can discuss a solution to have them stay in the neighborhood where they currently live.
There has been a pattern where many residents in their respective neighborhoods have seen an uptick in homelessness in the past year, as sweeps have moved people experiencing homelessness from one neighborhood to another, with some coming to the Richmond District over the past year. Well, it must be nicer than the Tenderloin, but does that mean you get to stay? If this were the case, Supervisor Mahmood, could you please move me to a residence on Broadway in Pacific Heights?
This proposed legislation reflects what often happens inside City Hall. People demand solutions to problems nobody wants to solve directly. But this is a problem that will continue to hinder San Francisco’s full recovery until the issue is addressed at its root.
To address the homeless and drug problem, it means arresting dealers and repeat users, fully sentencing and deporting drug dealers, and implementing recovery environments in shelters, supportive housing, and treatment centers. But we’ve heard very little to no use of the words “arrest,” “drug-free,” or “recovery” from Supervisor Mahmood or most of his colleagues.
Supervisor Mahmood … Could you please move me to a residence on Broadway in Pacific Heights?
And for those with a short memory, Supervisor Mahmood did not publicly support Proposition 36 or District Attorney Brooke Jenkins in her reelection last November.
Supervisor Mahmood is deemed moderate by groups such as Blueprint for a Better San Francisco (formerly TogetherSF) and GrowSF. He has made occasional common-sense choices in his first six months as supervisor. But this proposal is a sop to “progressives” whose policies and graft have only exacerbated the problem.
As a compassionate and common-sense San Franciscan, I am supportive of shelters, transitional housing facilities, and behavioral health centers, provided they are managed by organizations that are held accountable and offer the necessary services to save lives. However, before we build or add more capacity, it is time to take a thorough look at the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, as well as the nonprofit operations that manage our shelters and supportive housing today.
Options such as the former Log Cabin Ranch in Santa Cruz, which used to serve as an alternative to incarceration for youth, are worth considering. It sits away from the drug dealers and in a rural area where there is less temptation to continue using drugs. While it may be costly to get up and running, I’d rather have my taxpayer dollars go to facilities like this, outside of San Francisco. Truly a win-win for the residents of San Francisco and for those seeking to regain stability and get their lives back on track.
What is clear is that the current policy isn’t working. Already from January through May 2025, there have been 311 overdose deaths in San Francisco. We are on a grim pace to surpass the 635 overdose deaths that took place in 2024.
I encourage our leaders to look outside San Francisco to move those suffering on our streets from homelessness and drug addiction. We can’t keep hemming and hawing about how to solve this crisis. Time is of the essence. And though the shift in vibes has changed throughout parts of our city. As I mentioned earlier, San Francisco will not fully recover until we address the problem at its root.
Griffin Lee is an organizer with ConnectedSF.
Originally published on The Voice of San Francisco on July 8, 2025 by Griffin Lee