Will Covid-19 Actually Benefit the Bay Area Homeless Population?
By: Brandon Levy
Tags: Coronavirus, Covid 19, San Francisco, Natural Resources, Homeless

Two men without homes sitting and smiling

You’re right, when looking at the day to day lives of those without a home in San Francisco’s current climate, the situation is horrible, possibly even the worst it’s been in over two decades due to decreased foot traffic and a deadly virus that seems to be out to get anyone regardless of race, class, religion, etc. So when you read the title of this article and say, “no, absolutely not, how dare you?”, you’re not entirely wrong, but when looking at the situation in terms of the bigger picture, there may be evidence that could sway you to re-evaluate.

The top of the Golden Gate Bridge

It goes without saying that the lifestyle of someone living without a home in the Bay Area has changed dramatically this year, and due to San Francisco legislators, it looks as if it’s about to change even more. Only months into the pandemic, San Francisco legislation decided to house 2000 of the 8000 homeless individuals that reside in SF, but now, only two months later, the city has decided that this expense is too much. Not only is it too expensive, causing the program to shut down, but it is entirely ineffective in regard to the larger problem as well. In the past, SF legislators have helped homeless individuals with policies that simply allowed their existence, rather than those which truly were meant to provide help. Coronavirus has broken open and exposed how little San Francisco’s legislature was doing for the people of their city who needed them the most — unable to live off of the kindness of others in streets that are no longer bustling with foot traffic, an aging homeless population was left vulnerable. San Francisco legislators had been exposed for leaving the homeless crisis their city faced in the hands of the day to day passer-by able to spare a few coins, a dollar, or even a meal, but with lockdowns and quarantine it became utterly apparent that when no one was there to offer some love — SF had built nothing for these people to fall back on. As an effect of shelter-in-place orders with no basic consideration for those without shelter, the death rate among San Francisco’s homeless population had tripled. In addition, because of the first regional shelter-in-place order back in March (which had caused businesses and other services that provided homeless individuals with a shelter to stay in to either close entirely or reduce capacity by on average 76%) the number of tents that began to pop up around the city rose anywhere from 71% to 258% in historically low-income neighborhoods of the tenderloin. Needless to say, the pandemic we are all currently living in has revealed that San Francisco’s legislature looked at seriously dealing with chronic homelessness as an after thought, and because it was able to reveal this in such an extreme way it, unlike anything else before, has uniquely been able to force SF policy makers to actually put in the effort to help all 8000 homeless residents of their city. What Supervisor Rafael Mandelman came up with back in October, and has started to gain funding and mobilization for, is a piece of legislation called “A Place for All”. What this would essentially do is offer those without a home the two essential natural resources that, when surveyed, they said that they needed the most: space and water.

A home inside of a tunnel

“A Place for All” is proposing that those without homes in the soon to be barren (due to the lockdown in California) streets of SF would be moved to one of the 42 designated sites around the city. These sites are to be determined by The Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services (HSH) — the idea is that everyone from people who have been homeless in SF for years, to homeless people coming into SF on a bus yesterday would have at least a tent within one of these 42 sites. The list of potential sites ranges from school yards to soccer fields to McDonald’s parking lots (where one site is currently stationed and in use) and everything in between. Now, this isn’t a perfect solution: tents will be cold in the winter, mental health and drug related issues which many of them face are not being addressed, and the sites have been, needless to say, incredibly difficult to secure and fund, but it’s a start and one can hope that once the ball gets rolling these sites can actually become somewhat of a place for rehabilitation.

A homeless man sitting on the side walk

Natural resources such as space and water are essential to the homeless population and essential to the journey which is rehabilitation, they always have been, and they always will be. Space isn’t often thought of as a natural resource, but nevertheless, it is a resource which can be used for economic gain that the earth alone provides. San Francisco, for many years now, has had policy in place that allows its homeless residents to essentially have space anywhere they please, even drop feces and piss most anywhere they like, but as Jim Baumohl — Berkeley alum and scholar of social welfare, sociology, and history with a specific focus on homelessness throughout the 20th and 21st century — puts it, there’s a large difference between having space and having what he calls the “community living room”. What “A Place for All” is essentially trying to do is create such a living room — a space where life can be maintained, ideas expressed, and a sense of comfort needed to create some sense of ease present. However, there is a slight deviation between what this policy does create, and what this ideal situation of the community living room is exactly, as Baumohl describes it, “First, it provides a place to be; second, it offers survival services; third, it is a point for case finding and case management; and fourth, it offers food and shelter.” The latter of which, food, is something that the legislation does not address, but rather is something that it is aiming for in the future.

A person living on the street looking directly at the camera

From the eyes of a person without a home, a space to put your belongings, relax, talk, and recover, is definitely essential, but beyond that water is always the top priority. Drinking water isn’t so much the issue however in a non-pandemic world: Starbucks, Subway, and other places alike are known for offering free water, and if not, there are always scarce drinking fountains to look out for. Unfortunately, during covid-19 many of these places as you know had to either permanently close or temporarily shut down, meaning that access to drinking water was becoming scarcer. Nevertheless, those without a home have reported that drinking water is not so much an issue of attainability as is water to clean themselves with. Here lies the main natural resource that homeless people all around the world year in and year out have determined to be their number one necessity: water for a shower. Staying clean allows you to feel respectable enough for an interview and, maybe more importantly, feel stable. There is something about staying clean that defines the mental state of the human condition in a way that allows someone to pivot themselves towards success. The “A Place For All” legislation makes promises about providing access to running water for a shower; I believe that whether or not this will actually be accomplished is going to be a deciding factor in determining whether this project is about helping these people along their journey of homelessness and recovery, and protecting them from coronavirus, or more so about bundling them into a group and moving them in order to further segregate the city along lines of class and status. The accessibility to a shower at this very moment for homeless individuals in San Francisco is entirely negligible, and I along with many without homes themselves believe that if this were to change it would be groundbreaking for the community.

Regarding the devastation coronavirus has had to the SF homeless population, the raw exposure of SF policy (or lack thereof) regarding the chronic homelessness that the city faces, and the potential of a positive response to what some in legislation have looked at as a call to action, I ask you, is it fair to say that when gazing at this issue from years in the future that coronavirus has had an overarching positive effect on the issue of homelessness in San Francisco? Frankly, only time will tell; however, what this does put emphasis on for the time being is the extent to which these basic natural resources of space and water are necessary and must be prioritized. We can only hope that when creating this legislation, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman is taking the lives of these sacred members of his community as seriously as he would any other.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE

In San Francisco, the homeless population is made up of people that are only getting older, largely suffering from drug abuse and mental illness, and constantly in search of their next meal. I, and the members of this community, ask if you would help our cause and aid those most vulnerable by offering assistance to those that try to provide the natural resources necessary. Click here to help provide life changing showers to those in our community, and here if you believe that the “A Place For All” legislation is worth supporting.