Monday, February 28, 2022

In San Francisco, Hundreds of Homes for the Homeless Sit Vacant

(Our take: The problem is that if the city and nonprofits did their job and successfully housed everyone...they'd be out of a job. So they only do a percentage of their objectives. Isn't it tragic!)

 
Featured in the San Francisco Public Press:

In spite of a growing Department of Homelessness with an annual budget of $598 million, eligible people still wait months or even years after being approved for assisted housing. Meanwhile, hundreds of units remain unused.

Co-published with ProPublica. This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the San Francisco Public Press. Sign up for our newsletter and ProPublica’s Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.


At a bustling makeshift flea market on a street corner in San Francisco’s Mission District, Ladybird sells her wares. One afternoon in December, wearing a black hoodie, faded black jeans embroidered with roses and carefully applied makeup, she biked three blocks from the city-sanctioned tent encampment where she lives, carrying a bag with a still-sealed Minnie Mouse stationery kit and a brand-new pair of brown high heels. Almost immediately, she was approached by a man interested in buying the stationery kit to give to his daughter for Christmas. “Eight dollars,” she said. He talked her down to five, and a deal was made.

During a pause in bartering, a text message appeared on her phone. “I’ve been assigned a case manager! It happened this morning,” she exclaimed, calling over her friend Johnny to tell him the news. “I’m going to be moving indoors in the next couple weeks.”

Ladybird said she hasn’t lived indoors in seven years. This winter, she said, she finally got approved for a permanent supportive housing unit — a subsidized room with health, employment and social services, paid for by the city and federal government. But despite her optimism, that didn’t mean the end of her wait. In San Francisco, the path from homelessness to housing can take as long as two years, and that’s for someone lucky enough to make it onto the wait-list.

San Francisco’s struggle with housing its homeless population is notorious across the nation. Multiple mayors have promised to get the crisis under control. The city’s dedicated homelessness department, created in 2016, has an annual budget of $598 million — a sum that has more than tripled in its short existence.

Nonetheless, as of early February, the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing reported 1,633 homeless people like Ladybird — approved for housing and awaiting their turn to move in. Yet records provided by the department show 888 vacancies in its permanent supportive housing stock as of Feb. 22. Filling those empty rooms would not just cut the waiting list by more than half. It would be enough to house roughly one in every eight homeless people in the city. The homelessness department said it cannot talk about individual cases, but officials acknowledged that at least 400 people have been waiting more than a year, far beyond the department’s professed goal of placing applicants into housing 30 to 45 days after they’re approved.

Source: San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

These persistent vacancy numbers stem largely from two new bureaucratic problems. First, the homelessness department created a policy that bumped hundreds of people who had previously been approved for housing to the bottom of a new list. In December 2020, the department rolled out a plan that reserved all available permanent supportive housing units for residents of shelter-in-place hotels, which had been opened during the pandemic to keep people who had been living on the streets safe from COVID-19.

This led to a spike in vacancies as many hotel-dwellers opted to stay in place rather than accept a more permanent option. It also meant that everyone else — people on the streets, in shelters, in navigation centers and in city-sanctioned tent sites — was out of luck, simply based on where they slept at night.

It’s into this void that Ladybird fell. A resident of a tent site, she was behind an even larger number of people on an already-massive list.

Second, even when someone is approved to move in, the city is slow to send the paperwork — what’s called a “referral” — over to the private nonprofit organizations contracted by the city to manage housing units. Over the course of the pandemic, this problem has grown steadily worse.

Doug Gary recently retired from one of those organizations, Delivering Innovations in Supportive Housing. A year ago, he reported that the organization had 38 vacant units, with no referrals. Gary remembered passing people sleeping on the sidewalk as he walked to work, knowing he had empty units languishing in his buildings.

“There are going to be 38 people stuck on the street tonight, and they could be in DISH housing,” he recalled thinking. “And that’s been true for months.”

The last count of San Francisco’s homeless population numbered more than 8,000. There is not enough housing for all of them. To try to help, the city’s mayor, London Breed, is pursuing a new goal: She has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to procure 1,500 new units by the end of 2022. The city is on track to hit Mayor Breed’s goal, and may even exceed it.

But with so many units of housing already sitting vacant — a number that according to the department has roughly doubled during the pandemic — a critical question arises: Will the city be able to fill them?

A Deprioritized Population Struggles to Get Indoors

Funding for permanent supportive housing constitutes the largest piece of San Francisco’s budget for the homeless, and the supply of housing is growing rapidly. It consists mostly of older hotels converted into single-room-occupancy residences. The city contracts with a dozen nonprofit organizations to run the nearly 150 buildings and manage social services, such as moving people in and out of units, maintaining the properties and managing individual cases, including everything from connecting people to treatment for substance use disorder to helping someone apply for food stamps. Residents pay 30% of their income, including Social Security benefits, toward rent, and the city subsidizes the rest.

All of the 1,633 people in line for a permanent supportive housing unit had to answer a series of questions to determine who is most vulnerable and therefore most in need of housing. Every year, more than 3,000 people take this assessment, called “coordinated entry,” which takes into consideration, among other things, how long they’ve been homeless, if they have any mental or physical disabilities and if they’re addicted to drugs. Those who score highly by the city’s complex algorithm — in theory the most vulnerable — are marked “housing priority status,” and are then put on a waitlist for permanent supportive housing.

But actually getting off of the waitlist and into those units isn’t easy. The city’s software to track vacant units is error prone, unit maintenance problems take a long time to resolve, case managers quit and it can be impossible for people who have been living on the street to meet document requirements. (The homelessness department said that the city is currently working on the software and documentation issues, and has put a raise for case managers into its budget request for next year

On top of all that, the city’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic made getting housed harder by creating a system that gave top priority to those least likely to want to move in: those who suddenly found themselves living for free in shelter-in-place hotel rooms.

In spring 2020, as the city locked down and its housed residents stayed indoors, advocates raised concern for the thousands of homeless people living outside and in temporary shelters, many of whom had health conditions that increased their risk for severe COVID-19. Those fears were realized when 92 residents of a large one-room shelter contracted the illness just one month after the city shut down.

In response, San Francisco leased hotel rooms to help people experiencing homelessness quarantine indoors. It was always meant to be a temporary measure, and as the pandemic dragged on, the homelessness department strategized on how to wind the program down. The optics of sending anyone back to the street were not great, and the city created a policy of prioritizing residents of the shelter-in-place hotels for housing.

“I will be candid: It is both one of the biggest opportunities and one of the biggest challenges our city has faced in our homelessness space,” said Abigail Stewart-Kahn, then director of the homelessness department, during a Nov. 10, 2020, Board of Supervisors meeting at City Hall, where she justified the new policy. She added that the department would keep an eye on the data, and would “course correct” to ensure the process was successful. In subsequent interviews and email exchanges, the department did not respond to additional questions about why that policy was created and pursued.

The data over the past 15 months shows a gradually increasing crisis: In October 2020 there were 544 vacant units. A year later, vacancies had nearly doubled to 1,064. While units sat vacant, people living outdoors were waiting to get indoors. Any course correction has been slow to come.

From the get-go, the policy of reserving housing for people in hotels was difficult to implement. Although residents knew the hotels were temporary and could close at any time, many were reluctant to move from free, modern rooms with private bathrooms into small, older units with bathrooms down the hall, at a cost of 30% of their income. All of a sudden, one housing provider said, three applicants for housing had to be referred in order to fill one vacant room.

In the first seven months after the policy was implemented, supportive housing vacancies jumped 61%, from 600 units in November 2020 to 964 in June 2021, a period when the city was also adding new units. In February 2021, the homelessness department reported that 70% of shelter-in-place hotel residents who were offered a spot in the Granada Hotel, a newly purchased permanent supportive housing building, had rejected the placement.

When someone turned down an available housing unit, it sat vacant until a new referral appeared. Providers found themselves in a new position: having to offer incentives to persuade potential tenants to move in.

Georgetta Lovett, a property supervisor at DISH, oversees more than 300 units of permanent supportive housing. She said the organization now provides move-in benefits: free rent for the first month, free meals for three months and a free Muni transit pass.

Resistance to moving into permanent housing is not something Lovett experienced when showing units to people who had been living outside.

“People coming directly off the streets would take the place immediately,” she said. “We would be able to show them a room, they’d say, ‘Oh, this is nice.’ Most of them don’t come with a lot of stuff, and they were like, ‘I can move in today, or I can move in tomorrow.’ And normally we can make that happen right away.”

A Feb. 24, 2021, a budget hearing at City Hall on shelter-in-place hotels showed the homelessness department was aware early on that the policy was adding to the vacancy crisis in permanent supportive housing.

“We are noting that people who are not in shelter-in-place hotels are more eager to take permanent supportive housing placements,” Stewart-Kahn said, adding that it was “putting pressure on our system.” She said that the department was “reevaluating” the policy.

Three weeks later, Stewart-Kahn resigned, moving to a new role as an adviser to the city’s Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families. That same month, the city established an 18-person shelter-in-place hotel housing team. Their task: to more efficiently implement the policy and move everyone qualified for housing from shelter-in-place hotels into vacant units. As a result of the change, move-ins did increase. In the six months before the housing team was established, the city moved 325 people into permanent supportive housing. In the six months after its creation, that number grew to 488.

In an email exchange with the San Francisco Public Press and ProPublica in February, Megan Owens, who oversees much of the housing process of the city’s homelessness department, acknowledged that the policy “caused a huge delay” for adults living outside of the hotels.

In June, the department told the news organizations that it planned to open up a portion of permanent supportive housing vacancies to unhoused people living outside of shelter-in-place hotels. But the department offered no transparency about how units were being allocated.

Neither effort did enough to catch up to the growing supply. By September 2021, vacancies were at their height, with 1,064 permanent supportive housing units empty.

The delay in access to housing has been rough for people living outdoors. According to the official numbers, the current median wait time for a unit is 82 days.

But Owens admitted that the software the city uses doesn’t accurately track the time between being approved for housing and moving indoors. The city and federal government spent $8.5 million for that system over the past five years, but information on people trying to get indoors still isn’t recorded accurately.

For example, if someone doesn’t contact their case manager for 90 days, their spot on the waitlist expires. In acknowledgment of the long delays, at the start of 2021 the city automatically reinstated those applications, but the software then started the timeline over from scratch.

“The 300 people that expired off the queue and were reinstated in December and January are now listed as having waited 20 to 45 days, depending when they were reinstated, but their experience is that they’ve been waiting for months,” Owens explained.

That lack of clear data worries Nan Roman, president and CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. People who are unsheltered “have very high needs, and they need to get into permanent supportive housing,” she said. “If you don’t keep good administrative data, you can’t track them. You can’t support them. You can’t find them. You can’t know what their situation is. It’s very important to have good data to make these programs work properly.”

Many of those who are waiting are living in city-sanctioned tent encampments in empty parking lots around the city.

That’s where Ladybird, ineligible for housing under the policy that prioritizes hotel dwellers, lived for 15 months. (She requested the use of her nickname for this story due to complicated family matters; her identity was confirmed by a member of the city’s health department.)

After years on the streets, Ladybird committed herself to finding a home. She said she took the coordinated entry assessment for housing three times — going through a mandatory six-month wait between attempts. She was finally approved in November.

“Six months is a long time,” she said about the time between applications. “You basically have to be sitting out here waiting to be raped every night.” (A University of California San Francisco study found that 32% of women living outdoors reported instances of sexual or physical assault.)

Research backs up Ladybird’s experience. “The impact of waiting weeks, months or years in a shelter or outside rather than a home has devastating consequences for a person,” said Chris Herring, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California Los Angeles. “Homelessness for even short periods of time has negative impacts on people’s physical, behavioral and mental health, can strain familial and social relations, have lasting impacts on future employment opportunities, and can entangle people in the criminal justice system.”

In the city-owned parking lot where Ladybird lived during the last year, her cheap camping tent, which rested on a wooden platform in a parking lot, got moldy during a wet winter. She developed pneumonia, and said rats would run around at night, hiding under the pallet she slept on.

“I can’t be there anymore,” she said when interviewed in December. “Your body goes through a lot being homeless. I’ve had pneumonia for two months now, from black mold on my tent. My tent is literally killing me.”

While the city said it is taking steps to mitigate delays, months of living in a wet tent site took its toll on residents. In text messages sent late one night, Ladybird described the chaos that had ensued as one of her neighbors had a mental breakdown. “This situation is getting worse by the day, it’s more twisted than anything I’ve seen in my decade out here,” she said. “I would be better off on the streets.”

The situation felt hopeless. “This site hasn’t placed anybody,” Ladybird said. “Anybody who’s getting out of there is doing it on their own. There’s no social worker. It’s just a dead end.”

Paperwork Bottlenecks Stall the Process of Moving People Indoors

While the policies of the last two years left people like Ladybird living outdoors, those living in shelter-in-place hotels haven’t always fared better, with some of them waiting more than a year to be connected to a home.

Marquita Stroud is one of those. She said that she has been homeless for 15 years, but that about a month before the COVID-19 outbreak began in earnest, she was approved for permanent supportive housing. “God was on my side!” she said when interviewed in December.

In April 2020, she was relocated to the Hotel Whitcomb, a historic tourist hotel repurposed to allow people experiencing homelessness to quarantine safely. Stroud was one of 500 homeless people the city moved from large, warehouse-style shelters into 25 hotels around town.

Stroud is an optimist, high-energy and cheerful, who wears her hair tied up neatly in a scarf. “It’s wet!” she exclaimed on a rainy morning, as she strode confidently down Market Street with an umbrella in one hand, pushing a cart containing her small, fluffy dog, Blue, with the other. She headed straight to a corner of the public library, a place she knows well.

Under COVID-19-era rules, Stroud isn’t allowed visitors where she lives, so she meets people at their apartments, outside or in public places. The prohibition on guests didn’t bother Stroud too much when she first moved in. But she felt isolated and, as the months dragged on, no one contacted her about moving into her own place. Stroud watched her friends and neighbors — many of whom arrived in the hotel the same day she did — move into permanent housing. Her turn never came.

In large part, that’s because the homelessness department’s process for reviewing and selecting unhoused people for referral is slow. And in the period when Stroud was waiting, things were markedly worse. In October 2020, 32% of vacant units had no pending referrals for a resident. In January, that ratio had more than doubled, to 66% of available units, according to the city’s own data. The department did not respond to questions about why this might be.

Gary ran eight buildings through DISH. In February 2021, before he stepped down, he said the problem wasn’t new, but it was getting worse.

“Somewhere there is a bottleneck where the city is not sending us the housing application — that is, the documented representation of that person that we can process,” he said. “We report the vacancy to the city, and those vacancies languish for weeks to months without a referral of a real live human being who can be housed.”

At least part of the problem is a shortage of case managers, who are the crucial link between vacant units and the hundreds of people approved for housing. There is frequent turnover in the high-stress positions, and nonprofits struggle to fill new job openings.

Stroud said she has been assigned six case managers in two years. To figure out who is assigned to her, she regularly checks a piece of paper taped to a wall in her hotel, which lists the name of the case manager assigned to each floor. She describes calling her case manager repeatedly to set up an appointment and not getting through.

“They pretty much don’t go knocking on your door,” Stroud said. “You got to ask for them. If I see one in the hallway — like if I see a worker talking to a client in the hallway — I always ask, ‘Are you a counselor? Are you my counselor?’ Because they don’t tell you.”

Nearly two years after being approved for a housing unit, Stroud is still at the Hotel Whitcomb. Although she dreams of going back to school, publishing her journals and giving back to the homeless community, her reality is much different. She’s had items stolen from her room, and the building has fallen into disrepair. “When we first got to this hotel, it was so cute,” she said. “Now they got the bedbugs, the roaches, the mice. Every other day, the pipes are messing up.”

Recently she met a woman who had recently moved into the Whitcomb, but was already on her way out: She’d been assigned a housing unit.

“I was asking her, what did she do to get her housing that quick? And she said her counselor just came knocking on her door like, ‘You ready to go?’” Stroud said, clearly frustrated. “I haven’t talked to anyone about housing,” she said this month, as she approaches her two-year anniversary at the hotel. “I’m still here just waiting.”

As for Ladybird, she was approved for housing in November, but three months later, she is still without a home. In January, she left the tent encampment for a short-term residential hotel, but it comes with a time limit. “After 28 days, we get put out.”

 

Monday, February 21, 2022

SF Tenants Set to Gain New Powers in Negotiations With Landlords

Featured in the San Francisco Public Press:

Tenants across San Francisco are poised to gain new collective bargaining powers to affect conditions in their buildings, thanks to a move by lawmakers Tuesday.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved protections for tenants to form associations, akin to labor unions, that can negotiate with landlords over a wide range of concerns, including issues like construction schedules and even helping tenants pay off debts taken on to cover rents, often called “shadow debt.

The protections, authored by Supervisor Aaron Peskin, must receive a second vote from the board before they become law, likely in April. With the full board’s backing, the legislation would survive a veto attempt by Mayor London Breed, who has not publicly stated a position on it.

“There’s no precedent for that in the United States in private housing,” said Greg Baltz, a legal fellow at the New York University School of Law’s Furman Center who focuses on tenant organizing, real estate finance and housing conditions. “There were attempts to start tenant collective bargaining with private landlords in the ’60s and early ’70s, that in large part never really went anywhere.”

The law applies to market-rate and rent-controlled buildings with at least five units. It prevents landlords from penalizing tenants for knocking on doors or gathering signatures to form an association, inviting organizers in, and holding organizing meetings within the building. Tenant associations would become official in buildings where the occupants of at least half of the units signed on. The landlord or their representative would be required to sit down with the association periodically and negotiate in good faith over the renters’ concerns.

About 198,000 housing units, or roughly half of San Francisco homes, are in buildings with at least five units, according to the city’s 2020 Housing Inventory. Some of those properties may fall outside the scope of this law.

The San Francisco Apartment Association did not respond to an emailed request for comment on the legislation and what it means for the city’s landlords, whom the group represents.

Tenant organizers are already preparing to help associations form in properties controlled by corporate landlords, said Brad Hirn, lead organizer at the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, which helped craft the ordinance.

“Tenants in some of those buildings are going to be ready to use the ordinance on day one,” Hirn said.

Housing and tenant activists in Oakland and Los Angeles have contacted him to learn more about the protections, he said. “We’re hoping that this can serve as a model for what can be done elsewhere.”

Peskin, who represents North Beach, last week called the proposal “the strongest tenant organizing legislation at the municipal level in the history of this state and country.” It is inspired by similar organizing protections in federally subsidized housing.

The legislation could be the first in the nation to compel landlords of private properties to negotiate. It also gives the city’s Rent Board the power to penalize noncompliant landlords by forcing rent reductions.

Corporate landlords have become a greater presence in the housing market over the last decade, and that has altered the nature of the landlord-tenant relationship, said Lee Hepner, Peskin’s lead staffer involved in crafting the proposal.

“A tenant can’t just call up the landlord anymore and say, ‘Hey, I’ve got a problem with my leaky sink,’” Hepner said. “Now they’re calling up a private, separate entity that is a management firm. And I think the intent of this ordinance is to allow tenants to organize and build power to match the consolidation on the ownership side.”

A birds-eye view of several multi-story apartment buildings, with downtown San Francisco in the background.

 

Tenants in San Francisco are poised to gain groundbreaking protections that would allow them to collectively bargain with landlords, after an initial vote by city lawmakers.


Monday, February 14, 2022

SF Renters on Verge of Winning Collective Bargaining Rights

Featured in the San Francisco Public Press:

SF Renters on Verge of Winning Collective Bargaining Rights

Coit Tower and the San Francisco Bay are seen behind apartment buildings in San Francisco's North Beach neighborhood.

Garrett Overheul/Unsplash

San Francisco lawmakers will soon decide whether to approve a proposal that could compel landlords across the city to negotiate with their tenants over a broad array of housing issues. The proposal has widespread political backing.

 

Groundbreaking tenant protections just got closer to becoming a reality in San Francisco.

City supervisors Monday gave the initial thumbs-up to legislation to protect the formation of tenant associations that, like unions, could collectively bargain with landlords. Negotiations could cover a broad array of concerns, including aesthetics, construction schedules and even rent levels building-wide. The three-person Rules Committee voted unanimously to approve the protections, which now move to the full Board of Supervisors.

The legislation appears likely to pass. Author Aaron Peskin has four co-sponsors, not including Rafael Mandelman, who green-lighted the proposal in the Rules Committee. If Mandelman remains a yes vote, it will have a majority of the full board behind it. The ordinance would need eight votes to override a veto from Mayor London Breed, who has not publicly taken a stance on it.

Peskin, who represents North Beach, called the proposal “the strongest tenant organizing legislation at the municipal level in the history of this state and country.” It is inspired by similar organizing protections that have been effective in federally subsidized housing.

At Monday’s committee meeting, Peskin said he had amended the legislation in response to concerns by the San Francisco Apartment Association, which represents landlords and opposed a previous version of the protections. The changes allow landlords to send representatives to negotiations rather than personally showing up.

The Apartment Association did not respond to an email asking whether it supported the latest version of the proposal.

Because the legislation fosters a bargaining environment similar to that between unions and employers, it has widespread support from labor groups, including the San Francisco Labor Council, the National Union of Healthcare Workers and Service Employees International Union.

The protections are especially important as renters try to stay housed while facing financial pressures brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, said Molly Goldberg, director for the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition, a group of organizations that offer services to thousands of tenants every year.

“This has been a challenging couple of years for all of us, and our counseling clinics are seeing two to three times the volume of cases that they’ve ever seen before, and we don’t expect this to change any time soon,” Goldberg said. “There are too many tenants that are self-evicting before we ever reach them.”

The legislation is largely inspired by long-simmering tensions between a group of San Francisco tenants and Veritas, often called the city’s largest landlord. The Veritas Tenants Association tried for more than a year to get the company to bargain with it over forgiving debt, including unpaid rent, that accumulated during the pandemic. The association won major concessions in January.

The Veritas Tenants Association helped Peskin’s office craft the proposal, which would help tenants establish the kind of dialogue they struggled to achieve with Veritas.

“We are hopeful that the ordinance serves as a foundation for new collective rights in the future,” said Debbie Nunez, a Veritas Tenants Association member.

Under the legislation, tenant associations could become official in rent-controlled or market-rate buildings with five or more units where the occupants of at least half the units signed on. The landlord or their representative would be required to periodically sit down with the tenant group and deliberate in good faith about their concerns. If they failed to do so, the tenants could appeal to the city’s Rent Board to penalize the landlord by forcing rent reductions.

 

 


Monday, February 7, 2022

Amazon in SF: City Quietly Inked Agreement (Kills Affordable Housing Opportunities)

Featured in the San Francisco Standard:

Amazon in SF: City Quietly Inked Agreement on Proposed Delivery Hub, Raising Hackles Over Back-Room Dealing 

San Francisco Mayor London Breed’s office quietly inked an agreement with Amazon.com Inc. last September to begin negotiating terms for the company’s proposed delivery hub at 900 Seventh St., according to documents obtained by The Standard through a public records request.  

 

The “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) with Amazon signals significant support at City Hall for a project that’s expected to face stiff opposition from labor unions, neighborhood groups and other stakeholders.

The agreement calling for the company and the city “to cooperate in negotiating the substance of a public benefits package” for the project was signed by Kate Sofis, the director of the city’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), the city agency responsible for hashing out development agreements that benefit the city. Amazon agreed to pay the city up to $250,000 for the time the OEWD and the City Attorney spend working on the deal. The MOU is non-binding and can be abandoned or altered at any time.

Such agreements are not unusual. But several top city officials said that they were surprised and upset to learn about the deal only now, and that it was inappropriate for official negotiations on such a controversial project to be kept quiet and exclude other stakeholders.

“I am not surprised that Amazon would try to come into the community without working with residents, businesses, and everyone that will be affected by their presence,” said Board of Supervisors President Shamann Walton, who represents the district where the property is located. “I think it signals that Amazon is an irresponsible neighbor.”

The Mayor’s Office did not respond to repeated requests for comment made Friday and over the weekend.

Amazon acquired a 6-acre site near the mouth of Mission Creek from trash-hauler Recology for $200 million in December 2020. Once the site of a proposed mixed-use development that would have delivered up to 1,000 units of badly needed housing, Amazon now wants to use the property for a “last-mile delivery station” that would employ up to 500 people and help speed delivery of packages in the city, according to a company presentation.

Sofis, before joining OEWD, had led SF Made, an advocacy group for locally manufactured brands, and had expressed support for Amazon’s purchase of the property. She did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Stephen Maduli-Williams, Amazon’s San Francisco-based manager of economic development policy who documents show is representing the company in negotiations with the city, did not respond to an email seeking comment. 

Amazon has increasingly run into local obstacles around the country as it expands its massive footprint of warehouses, distributions hubs, offices and data centers. The company canceled plans for a second headquarters in New York in 2019 in the face of local opposition, though the San Francisco project is much more limited.

The company has also been fighting union efforts to organize its workers, and that’s expected to be a major issue in labor-friendly San Francisco. One local union, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5, has already been organizing neighborhood groups and other labor unions in response to Amazon under a coalition called the San Francisco Southeast Alliance. Jim Araby, the organizer who has led that campaign, said the union had no comment.

Kim Tavaglione, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, did not respond to a message seeking comment on Friday.

Amazon first submitted plans for the 650,000-square foot, three-story delivery station in February. Under state law, the project requires an environmental-impact review as well as a public approval process before the Planning Commission. It’s unclear when that process might begin.

The memorandum of understanding designates OEWD as the “lead representative of the City in negotiating” with the company. It specifies: “As currently envisioned by Developer, the Project would not require the approval of a special use district, planning code and zoning map amendments, or the establishment of project-specific design guidelines. The Project will likely involve agreements related to workforce development and other public benefits, which may require review of other City agencies.”

The fact that the agreement was signed without the knowledge of city staffers and elected officials is stoking suspicion that Breed is willing to support Amazon at the expense of organized labor, neighborhood groups and other interests.

“It would have been nice to know the administration entered into it,” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who helped negotiate the complex land-use plan in the 2000s that kept the Seventh Street site zoned for warehouse use—a choice made then to preserve blue-collar jobs in San Francisco. 

Now, almost 20 years later, with the city’s income inequality much worse, Amazon’s low-paying delivery jobs, which would not allow workers to afford housing in the city, are much less appealing.

“It just feels a little janky,” Peskin added, “because, basically, it’s a sign that labor, and traffic, and environmental impacts to brick-and-mortar businesses are all being ignored and Amazon is being embraced.”

Pay starts at $17.25 an hour for Amazon employees at delivery stations, and delivery drivers, who work for third-party companies, start at $21 an hour, according to a summary of a “town hall meeting” led by Amazon and conducted over Zoom in November. 

Amazon already has three other sites in the city: 749 Toland Ave., near the produce market in Bayview; 435 23rd St.; and 888 Tennessee St., where the company employs 502 people, half of whom are “coming from San Francisco zip codes,” company officials said at the meeting.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the city’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development was part of the Mayor’s Office.

 

 

Tuesday, February 1, 2022

San Francisco Night Ministry

Please check the San Francisco Night Ministry's Open Cathedral events (food for the homeless): Sundays 2pm at Civic Center Plaza and Thursdays 5:30 pm at the 16th and Mission Street BART station. 
 
Saint Paulus Lutheran church's congregation makes the sandwiches after weekly worship so come to 1541 Polk St this Sunday: 10am for prayers and/or 11.30am to volunteer making sandwiches. 
 
The Night Ministry also has virtual prayer gatherings on Tuesdays at 6pm and their Care Line is available to all from 8pm - 4am every night by calling 844-HOPE-4-SF. 
 
Details on volunteering at the Open Cathedrals, joining their virtual prayer groups or to speak one-on-one with a Care Line specialist are on the Night Ministry's website: https://sfnightministry.org/
 
Also please follow their social accounts in support of everything the Night Ministry does: