by Jordan Wasilewski
I am a millenial, and one of the defining moments of my generation was 9/11. There are many takes on this issue, but one thing I gleaned from the aftermath is that, despite the supposed “unity” that crises bring, there are people out there who will weaponize collective pain to push policies that are wrongheaded and cruel. I find the same holds true for San Francisco’s overdose crisis.
Thousands of individuals have died or are struggling with substance use disorder, which is unfortunately impacting our permanent supportive housing. I personally have seen my neighbors wheeled out in body bags. This is a serious and sensitive issue that needs to be addressed in a way that works for all tenants. Similar to politicians in the wake of 9/11 calling for the PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq based on lies, we have a bunch of recovery grifters calling for solutions for us, without us and parachuting in like that scene from “Red Dawn.”
In this latest salvo in the drug war, District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey introduced legislation that would put a stop on all new site-based permanent supportive housing unless it is one of two types of sober housing. Last year, he introduced similar legislation that went nowhere, but at least it would have sunsetted when 25% of PSH became sober housing. This legislation, which is purportedly a response to Newsom vetoing legislation, allows for 10% of PSH units to be sober. Additionally, Dorsey’s legislation puts a permanent freeze on new non-sober housing for formerly homeless people, without regard for replacement units and without time- or goal-based sunsets. The board’s moderate supervisors—Rafael Mandelman, Bilal Mahmood, Daniel Sauter and Patrick Sherrill—are co-sponsoring the legislation, and another co-sponsor might be added pending the mayor’s appointment to the District 4 seat.
One of the allowed forms of housing in the proposed legislation is “drug-free supportive housing,” which considers illegal drug use or possession cause for eviction; the program is open to all other eligible applicants. Given the PSH eviction crisis, this type of housing should not be funded.
The other allowed type of housing is “supportive recovery housing”, which is designed as a voluntary, non-coercive program with a holistic support program. This housing program doesn’t penalize tenants who relapse but instead allows transition to a non-sober unit if necessary. I would support this type of housing if it was voluntary and included a pre-application process that determines need. Legislation would not be needed for this type of housing program
What makes Dorsey’s proposed legislation even more disingenuous is its coupling of freezing new non-sober permanent supportive housing with surveying tenants. While I am not against doing surveys as needs assessments, there are no protections against recovery-first advocates adding bias to the survey results.
Support for this type of housing among permanent supportive housing tenants is being misrepresented by several politicos. At my building’s monthly tenant meeting, the consensus was overall support for such recovery-based housing, as long as the programs aren’t forced upon us.
This legislation’s silver lining is that it only applies to site-based PSH instead of scattered-site PSH, the latter of which is where the City should go toward in PSH expansion. We have fewer scattered-site permanent supportive housing units compared with other cities, as the San Francisco Chronicle noted in its “Broken Homes” investigation. Scattered-site PSH can still be a recovery-friendly option, even without restrictions on substance use.
If the conversation were focused on making PSH more recovery-friendly in terms of design and offered services, many tenants, including myself, would find that amenable even in non-recovery based settings. If the proposed legislation moved towards assessing the need for recovery housing without banning non-sober housing, it would not be an issue among us tenants. Even if the process and conversations between legislators and tenants is long and messy, we should have them, as we’re all in search of sustainable solutions.
The point is, forced sobriety in housing is never a solution.
