In November’s general election, incumbent Mayor London Breed lost to Daniel Lurie. Daniel Lurie, the heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, has promised change in the manner that the City of San Francisco addresses its homeless crisis. During his mayoral campaign, Mr. Lurie laid out some of his plans regarding the homeless issue.
As reported by Fox2 KTVU, Mr. Lurie said, “He (Lurie) wants to build 1500 shelter beds in six months and 2500 tiny homes. He wants to prioritize cost-effective shelter, rather than expensive permanent housing. He also wants to require RVs to park in designated areas.”
In order to fully understand what the homeless community in San Francisco wants and needs from the incoming mayor, we consulted the Coalition on Homelessness’ authoritative and informative publication known as the “Street Sheet,” which was founded in 1989. The Coalition on Homelessness (COH) articulated their demands in clear and concise language in an article entitled: “Coalition to SF Mayor Elect: Act on Solutions to Homelessness in First 100 Days (November 15, 2024 edition of the Street Sheet – www.coh.sf.org).
Here are the demands I gleaned from my review of this Street Sheet article:
- Fill 700 supportive housing units
- Implement lasting reforms such as: (a) improve efficiency in housing placements; (b) re-direct money spent in sweeps to housing and homelessness prevention; (c) establish a compassionate solution-focused street response; and
- Resolve lawsuit on illegal seizure of homeless people’s belongings
I was especially troubled by this final demand. It’s obvious that employees of the City and County of San Francisco are still ignoring the “bag and tag” policy which I reported at length about in the first article of this series.
Since the COH-SF has asked for resolution of the lawsuit regarding illegal seizure of homeless people’s belongings, I decided to study the actual language in the lawsuit. Before I delve deep into the civil lawsuit, allow me to refresh our readers’ memories in respect to the policy known as “bag and tag.”
“Bag and tag” refers to a stringent and rigorous inventory policy/protocol that SF city employees are supposed to follow when unhoused people are relocated or “swept away.”
In mid-2023, the COH and their lawyers filed the following pleading against the defendants (City and County of San Francisco) – Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points & Authorities, Case No. 4:22-cv-05502-DMR (Dkt.130), United States District Court Northern District of California (Oakland Division), page 2, line 13-19 reads as follows:
“The Court also enjoined the City from violating its Bag and Tag policy, which requires the City to store personal property collected from the street that has not been abandoned and that does not represent an immediate health or safety risk. Dkt. No. 62-1 at 1-3. That policy also requires the City to provide advance notice prior to pre-planned encampment resolutions. Dkt. No. 62-1 at 2. The Court’s injunction relied on years of aggregate data and individual accounts showing that the City has engaged in widespread destruction of property. Dkt. No. 65 at 28-29; 37; 44-45. Those property destruction practices are prohibited under the preliminary injunction. Id. at 50.” [Emphasis added.}
This quote is straightforward and very powerful. The COH and their lawyers have filed follow-up motions regarding this issue, yet the problem remains unresolved. The City of San Francisco, specifically the Department of Public Works and SFPD, routinely violates homeless people’s 4th Amendment constitutional right. For clarity’s sake I state for the record, that the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. On more than one occasion, I have spoken with detainees at the San Francisco County San Bruno Jail and they have shared with me their experiences of being homeless on the streets of San Francisco.
Through my research, I have discovered that there is collusion between SFPD and DPW in order to coerce compliance when a homeless person’s property is illegally seized or thrown away. I have been told that SFPD threatens homeless people regularly with “warrant checks” or “drug charges” if they don’t go along with the program. This behavior is unethical and unconscionable, and it deserves further investigation. The City and County of San Francisco continues to disrespect the judicial authority of the Honorable Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge. Isn’t it time for some sanctions and monetary compensation for our unhoused community members? Are there two different types of policy enforcement in San Francisco…one for the rich and one for the poor? Inquiring minds want to know.
I recently spoke to my mentor and close friend, Del Seymour, the co-founder of Code Tenderloin about what appears to be a double standard in the manner that the SF Board of Supervisors in the City of San Francisco treats citizens who live in permanent supportive housing and those who live in high-rent districts like that of Pacific Heights. I’m specifically concerned with the proposal made by District 6 Supervisor, Matt Dorsey, “Dorsey announced that he was requesting that legislation be drafted that would require that permanent supportive housing (PSH) disclose so-called ‘drug-tolerant’ policies around drugs at their specific permanent supportive housing sites.”
My question is this: Does Supervisor Dorsey endorse labeling the luxury market rate developments like the one where he lives as “drug-tolerant”? I THINK NOT!
To bring home my point, I encourage our readers to do two things: (1) read Jordan Davis’ article entitled, “PSH Proposal Shames One Drug Culture While Ignoring Another” (https://www.streetsheet.org/psh-proposal-shames-one-drug-culture-while-ignoring-another/); and (2) take time to watch and listen to this YouTube video by Del Seymour from 2019 which lets all the world know that rich people in San Francisco sell drugs and get high too!
I asked Del about his opinion of Daniel Lurie, and this is what he said, “Daniel has a big heart, and I think that he will be a strong ally for those who advocate for the homeless in San Francisco.”
I also spoke to a case manager that works for a program that houses justice-impacted seniors in the Bay View community. The case manager, who works for Cathy Davis, said, “Truthfully, I think Daniel Lurie was surprised that he won. People in the City think that Lurie wants to get rid of everybody from the Breed administration, but that’s not true. The man needs help, and he’s looking to form partnerships and coalitions with people who want to work with him in order to make San Francisco a better place to work, live, and play.”
The case manager who asked to remain anonymous also told me that D.J. Brookter, the current CEO of Youth Community Developers (YCD), intends to run for District 10 Supervisor when Shamann Walton’s term expires.
Malik Washington is a freelance journalist and Director at Destination: Freedom and Destination Freedom Media Group.
