- By Adam Shanks | Examiner staff writer |
- Sep 13, 2023 Updated 16 hrs ago (SFExaminer.com)
City and state leaders have excoriated an injunction they claim handcuffs their ability to address proliferating homeless encampments in San Francisco.
But it’s difficult to peg by any objective measure exactly how the court order — issued in December by a federal judge after homeless advocates alleged city sweeps were unconstitutional — is having an impact on the overall state of homelessness in The City.
Anecdotally, The City’s attorneys and homeless outreach workers have illustrated how the injunction makes their work harder. But data San Francisco collects on a quarterly basis on encampments and its homelessness paints a mixed picture.
Somewhat paradoxically, both homeless advocates and city officials question the integrity of what limited data is available, noting that the injunction is just one of myriad factors that impacts conditions on the street.
In July — the most recent month available — The City counted 609 tents, the most since it began collecting the data in a quarterly census. However, that same month, it tallied only 14 “large encampments,” which are defined as having six or more tents clustered together. In fact, July marked the third consecutive census in which the number of large encampments had declined.
Thanks to U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu’s order — issued in response to a lawsuit filed by several unhoused people and their advocates — people living in a tent are ostensibly free from the threat of enforcement of several laws related to homelessness.
“The City’s encampment response, I’ve been pretty clear, has never been robust enough,” said Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, an outspoken critic of the ruling. “How much was Ryu’s injunction the but-for cause of The City’s non-resolution, and how much of it was just more reason? I don’t know the answer to that question.”
He described the ruling as “one more straw on the camel’s back.”
“It is one more contributing factor that, depending on your perspective, gives The City an excuse or is a real barrier, but it’s not the only one and we have a lot more work to do,” Mandelman said.
City leaders have argued in court that people on the street are citing the ruling when refusing to move.
“Since the District Court entered its preliminary injunction order, more homeless individuals have, in effect, taken up what appears to be semi-permanent residence on the streets and sidewalks,” wrote Sam Dodge, the former director of The City’s Health Streets Operations Center, which led the effort to clear encampments. “Conflicts among homeless individuals in encampments, and between homeless individuals and others, some of which lead to violence, appear to be increasing in frequency.”
But The City’s own data shows that, when contacted by The City’s homeless outreach teams, a higher percentage of people are accepting referrals to shelter and housing than ever before.
In the second quarter of this year, 46% of people engaged by HSOC teams accepted help, compared to as low as 32% in the third quarter of 2022, months before the injunction was ordered.
The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office declined to answer The Examiner’s questions about the data and pointed to the testimony submitted in court by Dodge.
The City could have made the argument that the ruling would be disastrous in the long term, but might not immediately cause dire consequences. Attorneys instead opted to argue the ruling was already shaking things up on the ground.
But identifying measurable, objective proof that homelessness in San Francisco has worsened is challenging.
Mandelman pointed The Examiner to the encampment in his district occupied by Toro Castaño, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against The City. In August, the San Francisco Chronicle documented how Castaño’s encampment drew the ire of local business owners and neighborhood residents, who believed — contrary to his assertions — that Castaño had denied offers of shelter.
“There are particular encampments where I have heard from our city encampment resolution folks that they just hit a wall,” Mandelman said. “People knew that they didn’t have to leave, and it didn’t matter how disruptive the encampment was.”
The ruling so incensed some city leaders and advocates that they rallied outside the federal courtroom where the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard — and later denied — The City’s appeal of Ryu’s ruling last month.
Despite the loss, San Francisco leaders highlighted the 9th Circuit’s affirmation that The City can force people from encampments if they’re first offered shelter. (Homeless advocates counter that The City has historically failed to meet that standard).
“After the 9th Circuit has made clear that where folks are offered shelter, those encampments can be moved, The City’s excuses are going to ring hollow,” Mandelman said.
Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness — a plaintiff in the federal lawsuit — attributes the improvement in homelessness data to The City’s emphasis on diversifying its shelter options.
“It’s because there’s more (shelter available),” Friedenbach said. “They were lying in 2022, and they’re lying in 2023 about people saying no to shelter.”
Still, she has qualms with the data, which she says counts a person as “refusing” services even if there aren’t enough — or the right type — shelter beds to realistically accommodate them.
“What about the person who is in a wheelchair who they only had a top bunk for?” Friedenbach asked.
Friedenbach also questioned the accuracy of the tent census, and argued that the tally of homeless people — not the tents in which they live — is far more valuable.
Despite division over the ruling, there is wide agreement that San Francisco has both dramatically improved its shelter and housing offerings in recent years, but has a long way to go.
A July report by the Controller’s Office found that the number of temporary shelter and overflow beds in San Francisco grew by 22% between 2019 and 2022. Still, the same report found that The City has only 52 shelter beds for every 100 homeless people.
