San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities

by Michael Shellenberger

Today we remember Milk as perhaps the most significant gay rights leader of all time. He is the person who unlocked the secret to reducing prejudice against same-sex relationships, by people disclosing to friends and family that they were gay. Sean Penn won an Oscar after immortalizing Milk’s life in a 2008 film. But Milk owed his political career to dog poop. Shortly after taking office in 1978, Milk introduced the “Scoop the Poop” Act,3 which by the end of the summer the Board of Supervisors had passed.4 Afterward, a journalist said to Milk, “The police department says it may be hard to enforce this,” to which Milk replied, beaming, “I think it will be easy based on peer pressure. It’s going to be hard to write citations. But when a San Franciscan is walking down the street and sees someone breaking the law you say ‘Hey!’—with a smile—‘You broke the law.’ And after a while, when enough people do that, the message will be clear. It will be an education process. I really hope not one single citation is ever issued. . . . I don’t want to put anybody in jail. I don’t want to fine anyone. I just want to clean up the mess.”5 People

But Brown never stopped the sweeps of the homeless and increasingly sounded like his predecessor. “If you put together really aggressive and attractive programs,” he said in 1996, “you begin to establish an identity where advocates may become a source of supply for your population.”80 The San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness and other progressives felt betrayed. “I don’t have the answer,” Brown said. “I’m not working toward anything at this moment except the maintenance of current programs, but that’s not a solution.” Brown called off a homelessness summit, saying, “I couldn’t get the advocates to believe that we were sincere about trying to find solutions.”81

But the biggest reason many people come to San Francisco is for the cheap and abundant drugs and the lax law enforcement. “I didn’t want that straight life,” said a thirty-two-year-old homeless man from Alabama. “I was after the candy—getting high, easy money, freedom, ladies, getting high some more.”20 “Some of these small towns, you stick out straightaway and they come for you. Someone makes a call and the cops get on your tail. You could be just walking down the road like anyone else, no cart, nothing, and they pick you up.”21 Said another, “Some of the things allowed to happen in San Francisco would never be permitted back home in Boston.”22

Jacqui Berlinn is a mother whose son, Corey, is homeless and addicted to fentanyl and living on the streets of the Bay Area. “My son tells me San Francisco is where he most readily gets what he needs. He calls it ‘Hell,’ and compared it to Pleasure Island in the Disney film Pinocchio. “On one side of the street are people giving you food and clean needles,” Corey told her. “On the other side of the street are all the drug dealers. It’s like getting all the candy and treats that you think you want. You think you’re having fun. But little by little it’s taking away your humanity and turning you into something you were never meant to be, like how the kids start turning into donkeys in Pinocchio, and then end up trapped and in cages.”

Others agreed. When I asked a major provider of housing for the homeless in the Tenderloin, Randy Shaw, whether people come to San Francisco for the drugs he said, without hesitation, “Yes, one hundred percent. No doubt about it. We have the worst overdose rate of any city in the country.” Matt Haney, the San Francisco supervisor who represents the Tenderloin, told me, “Undoubtedly there are some people who come here because they are sick with addiction. This is a place where you can access drugs more easily.”

When people arrive in San Francisco, they often discover there isn’t room in the shelters for them. “People come from all over the United States, thinking it’s some sort of spa here,” said a homeless man, “some sort of nirvana here. And they find out that it’s very expensive to live here.”26 The same was true in Los Angeles. “For the first time in 13 years, Los Angeles opened its housing voucher wait list last year,” said Dr. Margot Kushel. “The city drew 600,000 applicants for 20,000 slots, highlighting the enormous unmet need.”27 And more services attracted more people to Seattle. “I do think we have a magnet effect,” said Seattle’s former homelessness chief. Nearly one-quarter of the homeless in King County, in which Seattle is the biggest city, said they became homeless outside of Washington State.28 Mayor Breed said she opposed Proposition C because she feared that spending yet more on homelessness services, without any requirement that people get off the street, would backfire. “We are a magnet for people who are looking for help,” she said. “There are a lot of other cities that are not doing their part, and I find that larger cities end up with more than our fair share.”29 After San Francisco started offering free hotel rooms to the homeless during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, first responders reported that people had come from across the state. “People are coming from all over the place—Sacramento, Lake County, Bakersfield,” said the city’s fire chief. “We have a...

Los Angeles homelessness service provider emphasizes the extent to which the homeless shop around from city to city seeking the best housing and benefits and avoiding the law. He wrote, “for a majority of people they move from community to community, looking for food, shelter, and services. Keeping one step beyond the arm of the law or moving from others who might harm them.”

While some homeless are attracted to San Francisco for housing and services, many of San Francisco’s most visible homeless people don’t use them. When I visited the Tenderloin with Tom Wolf, he pointed to the doorway to a building. “I slept here,” he said, “because I was such an addict that I didn’t want to walk the five blocks to the shelter. I wanted to be right near the dealers.”

In the context of cities with permissive attitudes toward drugs, like San Francisco, many homeless people stay in encampments to use illegal substances more freely and easily than they can in the shelters. Many policy makers understand this. “I went out with a team twice to have conversations with people to get an understanding of what they’re dealing with,” said Mayor Breed in 2020. “It was absolutely insane. Most of the people did not take us up on the offer [of shelter and services].”

Even people who would prefer to live in sober environments say they do not want to quit their addictions. “When we surveyed people in supportive housing in New York,” said University of Pennsylvania homelessness researcher Dennis Culhane, “almost everybody wanted their neighbors to be clean and sober but they didn’t want rules for themselves about being clean.”

“What ends up happening with a lot of progressive liberals in San Francisco,” said Tom, “is they get to go home to their nice house in Noe Valley and six-figure job and kids in private school. They can afford to vote progressively for social justice because they don’t have to walk their kids through the Tenderloin and play hopscotch over the feces and needles.”

Homelessness advocates often level serious charges at people who disagree with their view of the problem and the solution. In the early 1990s, a Harvard sociologist who wrote a book on homelessness noted, “those who see the homeless as passive victims of circumstances beyond their control often react to [the evidence of service refusal] with a mixture of fury and disbelief.”

Progressives level the same charges at people thirty years later. “Because of some of the stuff I say,” said a community activist in Seattle’s historically black Capitol Hill neighborhood, “people say, ‘Oh, she’s not for them.’ But I have a heart for homeless and mentally ill. Most of my family works with the mentally ill.”46 Noted a Chronicle journalist in 2017, “Inevitably, homeless advocates and others will say, ‘You’re not compassionate,’” in response to stories about homeless encampments.47 “They called me a racist,” said Tom. “They accused me, a guy who used to be homeless, of demonizing the homeless, because I’m asking for accountability.”48

I was shocked and horrified by what she seemed to be suggesting. “It sounds like you’re worried that I’m going to write something that would cause violence against people who live on the street,” I said. “No,” she said. “It’s just the initial summary of ‘all the misery on the streets of San Francisco’ is aligned—gets used a lot. ‘And in such a progressive city.’ I don’t think even political consultants are trying to increase violence against those people who are unhoused. I don’t think that that’s anyone’s mission. But it is what happens.”50 But there is no evidence for what Kim claimed. In fact, the number of reported attacks on the homeless declined nationwide between 2008 and 2017 from 106 to 29, according to a study by a homelessness advocacy organization, even as concern over homelessness rose from 38 to 47 percent.51

The main perpetrators of violence against the homeless tend to be other homeless people, or drug dealers, according to people who have lived on the streets. “There wasn’t a day that went by without violence on the street,” said Tom about his time living homeless in the Tenderloin. “Someone getting in a fight. Beat up. Shot for drugs. One of the Hondurans [drug dealers] would whip out a machete and chop at a guy’s arm because he had used a counterfeit five-dollar bill. That doesn’t get brought up at the community meetings. The only people talking to the Board of Supervisors are Harm Reduction Coalition and homeless advocates who paint this very different picture of the homeless being victimized. They point at the politicians saying, ‘You’re all victimizing them!’ with the sweeps.”

In the spring of 2021, Friedenbach published an op-ed opposing a proposal considered by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to create, within eighteen months, sufficient homeless shelters and outdoor “Safe Sleeping Sites” for all of the city’s unsheltered homeless. “One can simply take a look to New York City,” she wrote. “Their department spends about $1.3 billion dollars of its budget on providing shelter for their unhoused population while thousands remain on the street. . . . As a result, New York has a higher rate of homelessness than San Francisco.”4 Housing First advocate Margot Kushel of the University of California, San Francisco agreed. “The problem with New York—and I spend a lot of time with people working in the system in New York—is that they spend an estimated $30,000 for each person per year to keep them in shelter. That’s not what we want to do. Because if you create the shelter and you don’t create the housing, then people are just in shelter forever.”

“I think it’s great for people to be able to die a decent death,” I said. “But if we’re selling this as improving people’s outcomes, doesn’t that kind of undermine it a little bit?” “No,” said Tsemberis. “People would die anyway. It’s just housing. It’s not a miracle. People die. If they’re homeless, people die, if they’re housed they die.” “So we should not expect permanent supportive housing to lower the mortality rate?” I asked. “Not given the preconditions that people come in with,” he said.

No matter how many times you’ve heard the statistics, they never lose their power to shock: the United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world’s population but has 25 percent of its prisoners.1 Today, the United States incarcerates five times more people than it did in 1970. The total number of people incarcerated in state or federal prison rose from 200,000 to 1.6 million between 1972 and 2014.2 California’s incarceration rate quintupled, from about 100 for every 100,000 residents to nearly 500. Between 1984 and 2005, the state opened twenty-one prisons.3 The reason, according to Michelle Alexander in her bestselling 2010 book, The New Jim Crow, was drugs. “In less than thirty years, the US penal population exploded from around 300,000 to more than 2 million, with drug convictions accounting for the majority of the increase.”4

But a closer look at the data reveals that just 3.7 percent of state prisoners are there for nonviolent drug possession, and that 14.1 percent of state prisoners are locked up for any nonviolent drug offense. Forty-seven percent of inmates in federal prisons are in for nonviolent drug convictions, but there are just 172,000 people in federal prisons and 1.3 million in state prisons.7 Over half of all prisoners in state prisons are there for violent offenses like murder, rape, and robbery.8

Violence, not stricter drug sentences, drove mass incarceration. New York is proof. For ten years after Governor Nelson Rockefeller and the state legislature increased penalties for drug use beginning in 1973, the number of people in prison for drugs hardly changed. Then, in 1984, the number of people incarcerated for drug crimes started to rise sharply due to violence associated with the crack epidemic. More than a decade later, in 1997, total inmates in New York prisons for drug offenses peaked and began their long decline, mostly because of a reduction in violence. It was only in 2004 and again in 2009 that the state legislature reduced penalties, and the declining rate of incarceration for drug crimes didn’t change after those two years.

Drug overdoses are today the number one cause of accidental death in the United States as a result of America’s historic addiction and overdose epidemic.* Overdose deaths rose from 17,415 in 2000 to 93,330 in 2020, a 536 percent increase.30 Significantly more people die of drug overdoses today than of homicide (13,927 in 2019) or car accidents (36,096 in 2019).31 The overdose crisis is worse in San Francisco than in other cities.

Heavy drug and alcohol use degrades the health of homeless people. Drug overdose is the leading cause of death among the homeless.44 Skin infections and disease are more common due to injecting drugs like heroin and meth. Respiratory diseases are common due to smoking tobacco, crack, heroin, fentanyl, and meth.45 And about two-thirds of the time of hospital emergency departments in San Francisco is spent serving the homeless.46 Social

Those who recover from their addictions no longer see homelessness the same way. “Once I started to heal myself,” said a formerly homeless man, “I knew I had to work with this so-called homelessness problem, to get some of those people suffering out there into treatment and help them turn their heads around.” “So-called?” asked Gowan. “Ain’t no homelessness problem in my opinion,” the man replied. “The problem is addiction, period. Even those people that have schizophrenia or something else like that, generally you find they have a big problem with addiction as well.”

“Being high on meth looks just like bipolar mania,” explained a former psychiatric emergency room doctor. Half of all patients whom he saw at San Francisco General Hospital had both severe mental illness and drug addiction. “Things like methamphetamine and cocaine stimulants will make you psychotic, and so it looks just like bipolar mania,” he said. “I mean, it’s indistinguishable.”93 Said Kruger, “You probably figured out that folks who are substance abusers are folks who have mental illness and they end up in crisis. In the emergency department they’ll say, ‘He’s a speeder.’ He’ll be psychotic but labeled a speeder because he’s doing meth. The Mental Health Department says, ‘We don’t have to deal with him because he’s on meth.’ But you still need to deal with him.”