S.F. could kill plan for tiny homes for homeless due to ‘overwhelming’ backlash, ‘absurd’ costs

Supervisor Hillary Ronen, who originally championed the idea of transforming a blighted parking lot at 1979 Mission St. intoa village of 70 tiny cabins, said plans are now on hold after “overwhelming opposition” from some members of the community and her own skepticism about whether the village will improve the conditions in the neighborhood.

增加她的沮丧:“荒谬”的价格uilding the cabins, which officials estimate will cost up to 10 times more than similar sites in other Bay Area cities — approximately $100,000 per cabin, not including operating costs, vs. $10,000, for example, in Oakland.

“One thing is the cost. But the other thing is the city's ability to keep the conditions around these sites acceptable,” Ronen said of the proposed village that she initially hoped would open by the fall. “The street conditions are abysmal. But unless I’m convinced it will improve the neighborhood, I won’t approve it.”

The drama over the project provides a window into just how hard it is for the city to scale up its housing and shelter system, even as arecent reportfrom the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) estimated it would take more than 6,000 extra temporary and permanent beds to solve the crisis on the streets. It also puts into sharp relief how easily neighborhood opposition can derail a project, even when the funding and space is available — and the need is clear.

It’s also a prime example of the challenges around the rising costs for public projects. Officials must invest enough to avoid appearing like they're skimping on the facilities, but must also appear responsible with taxpayer money.

Sam Moss, the executive director of Mission Housing Development Corp., said the proposal in the Mission “is as close to immediate gratification” as the city can get when addressing its homelessness crisis. If this project is spiked, he said, “it would be particularly egregious” given that the funding has already been secured and the city-owned site is available.

“The stars have aligned,” he said. But “it’s always the same argument, it's always the same hand-wringing. It’s never about taking care of our homeless, it's always about how you're going to feel about what it's like to see homelessness.”

The empty lot will bedeveloped into affordable housing, slated to break ground in 2025. Until then, officials hoped they could use the site to shelter those who are currently homeless in the Mission, which has struggled with a rise of people living in tents, drug use and illegal vending over the past few years.

Tiny cabin villages — a relatively affordable and fast way to get people off the streets — are seen as the next frontier in sheltering homeless residents. The private cabins, which are about 64 square feet each, have comforts such as heat, a desk, a bed and a window. The surrounding site has bathrooms, showers, a dining facility and security. Advocates say they’re a more humane and dignified way to get people off the streets than group shelters and that homeless people are more likely to accept placement in them.

The model has been widely embraced by other Bay Area cities, such asOaklandandSan Jose. San Francisco currently has one village of70 cabins at 33 Gough St., which HSH director Shireen McSpadden told The Chronicle in September 2021 the department “might want to replicate” in other parts of the city if the pilot program was successful.

Ronen, who visited the site at 33 Gough St. last year, described it as “neighborhood-like,” orderly and quiet, but has pumped the brakes on the Mission proposal after constituents slammed it.

At a recent community meeting on the proposal, about 100 neighbors packed into a nearby church and passionately objected to the site, largely over concerns about its proximity to Marshall Elementary School. Todd Eng, whose daughter attends Marshall, said after the meeting that his fourth grader often confronts drug use and tents on her walk to school.

He said he’s desperate for some kind of change and supports the idea of tiny cabins as a more dignified way to house people but said he’d rather see the village somewhere else.

“My question is whether or not this is really a good location for it, being that it’s so close to the school,” he said. “I’m not convinced there is no other space that could have been used.”

But the vacant, city-owned parking lot ticked off all the boxes for city officials. It’s also a site with a fraught history: After a developer announced plans to build market-rate housing on the site in 2014, activists fought the plan — dubbed Monster in the Mission — leaving the site empty for years. The city eventually bought the site, with plans to turn it into 100% affordable housing.

Emily Cohen, a spokesperson for the department, said HSH has recently drafted an agreement between multiple city departments — including the Public Works department and police — that promises to “bring additional support and homelessness services to the Mission.” She said the department is currently working with the supervisor on an agreement.

But, even if the concerns about the location and whether the city will keep the site secure are squared away, there still remains the issue of cost.

City officials allocated $7 million in the current two-year budget to build and furnish the tiny homes in the Mission — equal to $100,000 per cabin. That’s much higher than the site at 33 Gough St., which nonprofit DignityMoves said it was able to construct for $15,000 a pop. Elizabeth Funk, the founder and CEO of the project, said the nonprofit was able to drive down the cost of the project by getting all the furniture as well as some construction services donated.

In Santa Barbara, Funk said the nonprofit was able to construct the cabins for about $51,400 each. “There are benefits to having a nonprofit and not the government building these things,” she said.

Meanwhile, in Oakland, a city spokesperson said in an email that 30cabins that just openedon Wood Street were constructed for about $10,000 each. The cabins at the village, which will eventually house up to 100 people, include a heater, electrical outlets, double-paned windows and each unit is “insulated to the standard of a regular home.”

HSH said the higher per-cabin cost for the Mission site is due to several factors, including increased construction costs amid inflation. Both Ronen and Cohen of HSH said the $7 million was an estimate and they are hopeful the prices will go down as Public Works gets bids from contractors.

As officials struggle with whether to move ahead with the project, in the backdrop is an intractable homelessness crisis. While the city reported a 15% decline in homelessness over the past two years, a December report noted that officials would need to spend an additional $1.4 billion on top of the more than $600 million it annually spends to meaningfully address the issue.

That cost would pay for adding 2,250 shelter beds, 3,810 units of permanent housing and “a significant expansion in homelessness prevention services and financial assistance.” But the report detailed the various barriers in the city’s way, including the glacially slow approval process, long construction timelines — and finding a location that is both financially viable and acceptable to neighbors.

On Monday afternoon around the site, the immediate block around the parking lot was calm and clear. A security guard stood in the lot, while people walked their dogs down Capp Street and the chatter of children could be heard coming from inside Marshall Elementary. On other days, though, the sidewalk is often in much worse shape, with several tents lining the area that spill into the street.

Ronen said she is disheartened by the neighborhood resistance, but also did not trust that the village would improve conditions. She pointed to the conditions around the existing shelters in the district: the Division Circle Navigation Center and the tent village at 1515 South Van Ness, areas that she said are still overrun with crime, drug use and trash.

At the same time, though, she realizes that not approving the project leaves the city in a no-win situation — where an empty parking lot in her district stays that way for years to come.

“I’m not going to continue to fight for these services in the Mission, unless the city really throws down to care about our neighborhood,” she said. “These street conditions would not be allowed in the Marina or Pacific Heights, and I’m tired of being the city’s sacrificial lamb.”

Reach Trisha Thadani: TThadani@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @TrishaThadani