Archive

Local Policy

Here They Go Again…

Despite evidence that Tasers are not effective at reducing officer-involved shootings,

SFPD is trying to adopt tasers in response to recent officer-involved shootings of mentally ill residents.

The San Francisco Police Department wants officers who are a part of a special team that has been trained to de-escalate crisis situations with people with mental illness, ARMED WITH TASERS.

Tasers are dangerous weapons, and their use has resulted in the deaths of 533 people in the United States.

The SFPD should improve its interactions with mentally ill people by fully implementing the Crisis Intervention Team program. Mandated by the Police Commission more than a year and a half ago, to date, only 3 of the 8 Crisis Intervention Team trainings approved by the commission have been completed.

De-escalation techniques like Crisis Intervention Teams are the only truly “less-than-lethal option” for police interactions with people with mental illness.

No to tasers for SFPD

SF NO_TASERS Collective

Task Force meeting Tuesday October 095:30 PM – 7:30 PM

SF Main Library, (Larkin & Grove), near Civic Center BART Station, 3rd floor in the Paley Conference Room

We are a working group comprised of 16 community activists, meeting every Tuesday at the SF Public Library, to defeat the 4th attempt of SFPD (since 2004) to secure a contract with Tasers International, INC.

and yes to competency in interacting with people with mental illness!

Sign the No Taser Petition

When it comes to the shelter reservation system in San Francisco, this might seem like an impossible dream, more delusion than imagination. However, for the past several months, that’s exactly what the Shelter Access Workgroup, SAW, has been doing.

The Problem

 San Francisco’s current shelter reservation system is an unmitigated disaster. It is complicated, inefficient and inconsistent. After waiting in lines for hours – or possibly days – homeless people are regularly turned away despite the fact the city reports vacant beds each night. They line up at resource centers hours before the 7AM opening – many arriving the night before – to be first in line for a chance at a 90-day reservation. Very few actually get one. Their only choice, if they want a place to sleep that night, is to spend most of the remainder of the day waiting in still more lines for a chance at a one night bed.

Adding to the frustration, CHANGES, the Human Service Agency’s computer system that books reservations for all city funded shelters, is notoriously unreliable. It regularly drops reservations. It is not uncommon for a person to receive a reservation and less than an hour later be turned away by the shelter, reservation in hand,  because their bed has been given to someone else. It reports no vacancies when in fact there are then alternately overbooks beds when no vacancies exist. These are examples of what happens when the system is working. Often, no reservations can be made because CHANGES is down altogether. Read More

From Streatfood in SOMA

to

Street Food in the Tenderloin 

Since his appointment as Director of the Mayor’s office of Housing Opportunity, Partnerships, and Engagement, or HOPE, former Supervisor Bevan Dufty has rarely been accused of thinking inside the politically acceptable box. In fact, many of his proposals push the envelope and challenge many of the tired, off-the-rack schemes that many of our tired, off-the-rack politicians drag out every few years – usually around election time – and try to re-sell.

First, there was wet housing for chronic alcoholics. This proposal was bound to baffle the local policy makers simply because it has a proven, successful track record. In Seattle, the program has saved the city millions in emergency medical care and police response, and has put many of the people it serves on the road to recovery and productive lives.  Read More

The Coalition on Homelessness has learned that there has been a policy change at Traffic Court effecting people receiving tickets for “Quality of Life” infractions – Jaywalking, Open Container, Camping, Sit/Lie, etc. –  and have missed court dates, allowing their tickets to go to warrant.

SF Traffic Court will no longer set court dates for cases in which warrants have been issued.

According to Traffic Court Clerk Supervisor, Janette Santos (415) 551-8502, in order to set a new court date, the person must pay the full amount of the original fine. If they are unable to pay the fine, they must go to jail in order to see a judge. This means that poor people will go to jail having never been convicted of a crime.

It is the opinion of the Coalition on Homelessness that issuing warrants and incarcerating poor people simply for being poor solves nothing and is likely unlawful. We will continue our efforts to remedy this and other policies that unfairly target an already marginalized population.

If you receive a citation while this unjust policy is in effect, you must either pay the fine or come to the Coalition on Homelessness before your ticket go to warrant so we can assist you in getting it discharged. Citation defense hours are Monday and Wednesday from 10 to Noon.

After a warrant is issued, these citations cannot be discharged.

Policy does not include MUNI violations.

COH cannot assist with tickets issued by MUNI fare inspectors.

If you receive a MUNI violation, go to their office located at 11 S. Van Ness

 

     By: Bob Offer-Westort

The San Francisco Police Commission is perhaps the most underestimated body in City government. When there’s a proposed policy change around policing—say, for example, Mayor Lee’s recently abandoned stop-and-frisk proposal—the tendency of many San Franciscans is to rally at the Board of Supervisors. San Franciscans have rallied at the Board of Supervisors in support of foot patrols. They’ve rallied against stop and frisk. They’ve rallied for more humane policies in dealing with people in psychiatric crisis. Intuitively, this makes sense: The Board of Supervisors is our legislature. Legislatures make laws, rules. Surely they can set policies for the Police Department?

But this is incorrect: Policing policy in San Francisco is the exclusive domain of the Police Commission. The Board of Supervisors has some influence: They control a portion of the Police Department’s budget, and Board members can introduce ballot measures which, if approved by the voters, would apply to the Police Department. But for most purposes, it is the Police Commission which decides. Read More

 

  

Ian Smith, a resident at the Homeless Camp

      By: Ian Smith       

There has been a lot of commotion in my life lately. All of it due to the fact I was, as of Tuesday, a resident of the homeless encampment located on Caltrans property at Fifth and King St. Life was gravy……

“I’d wake up in the morning and extricate myself from my makeshift “Conestoga style wagon”, shoot up a big ol’ syringe of methamphetamine, terrorize a few locals by offering them a slug of liquor out of a wet paper bag after which a few of the neighbors and myself would get together and play “used-needle darts”, gambling for cigarettes while shirt-less barefoot children run through the broken glass and needle strewn line of fire. Then we’d see what we had left for breakfast in our bucket o’ dead rats located right next to our openly aired toilets. mmm Good!”

……This is the way they would like you to think of us apparently. The only problem is it is the farthest thing from the truth and it is not your fault for thinking any differently. This is the image the media you rely upon to give you the truth in the stories they report portrayed of us. Well, to put it in the manner of Samuel L. Jackson’s character Jules in the movie “Pulp Fiction”, ‘Are you finished? Well allow me to retort!’. You do not have to be a genius to perceive the narrow minded view the writer of “Big SoMa Homeless Camp Cleaned Out” Kevin Fagen has toward the homeless. (as seen on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle) It’s much like many of the people online who posted comments with brilliant gems like “ Lock em up forever”. Wow. Intelligent. That lock ‘em up attitude reminiscent of anything? I am floored people in this day and age can even begin to nurture a philosophy as bent as that. So let’s use me as an example. Let us put my head on the proverbial chopping block. I don’t have a criminal record and would have no involvement with law enforcement if I did not live on the streets. I know many who are of the same “ilk”. What are you going to lock us up for? Not being able to afford outlandish San Francisco rent prices? Being told we are “over-qualified” for the majority of the jobs we apply for and very seldom get? Not having the ability to clean up or maintain an orderly appearance to be able to find work in the first place? Oh I know! Not having computers or electricity to power them with in order to be able to apply for jobs online, which is the only way you can apply anymore. That’s an arrestable offense right? Please. If I had received one offer, one promise of a job no matter what it was out of the literally hundreds for which I had applied, I would not be here today. Read More

Early last week, the Coalition on Homelessness learned of the planned sweep of a homeless camp near the Cal Train station at 4th and King.

Tucked beneath an overpass on the 280 Freeway just east of the Sixth Street ramps, the residents of this community of around 40 people have lived peacefully alongside their housed neighbors for years. The camp consisted of approximately 15 tents, several mobile structures, and a few cars and other vehicles. The encampment was located near Cal Train’s northern terminus and the inbound terminus of the N-Judah line only two blocks from AT&T Park; tens of thousands of visitors and commuters have passed by or over daily without giving it much thought. That’s exactly how the folks living there wanted it. Read More

On May 24, 2012 Mayor Ed Lee announced a full restoration of proposed budget cuts to the Department of Public Health, a restoration of Ryan White AIDS funding, and a 1% increase to non-profit contracts.

Join the Coalition and our allies in urging the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to take the next right step by replacing lost Federal and State monies and beginning to restore our non-profits and social service agencies to their needed staffing levels after years of devastating budget cuts.

Please come to our workgroup meetings and add your voice to ours.

 

Coalition Volunteers and Staff celebrate Mayor Lee's restoration of DPH Budget Cuts

 

 

 

 

By the Park Merced Action Coalition

On Monday, July 11, at 11am, San Francisco residents, San Francisco Tomorrow, Parkmerced Action Coalition, their attorney Stuart Flashman and members of the Board of Supervisors rallied on the steps of City Hall to call attention to the Board of Supervisors’ approval of a plan to demolish their rent-controlled community. They released the following statement:

STOP THE DESTRUCTION!
Learning from history, social fabric and neighborhoods can evolve organically for the betterment of San Francisco rather than calling for wholesale demolition with short-sighted economic benefits—particularly when true infill development alternatives would be both feasible and profitable.

In order to stop the destruction of one of San Francisco’s few multi-ethnic, multi-generational, and family neighborhoods, San Francisco Tomorrow (SFT) and the Park Merced Action Coalition (PMAC) have filed a lawsuit against the City for its June 9th approval of the Parkmerced Development Project.

The Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) for the Parkmerced Project is inaccurate and inadequate.  If allowed to continue as approved, the project will destroy 1,538 units of affordable, rent-controlled housing, adversely affect the environment and well being of those living, working, and playing in the region.  In addition, the suit points to the project’s inconsistency with priority policies enacted by San Francisco voters in Proposition M as well as other inconsistencies with the City’s general plan and violation of the City’s Sunshine Ordinance.

The lawsuit calls for the court to set aside the project approvals until the Park Merced Project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City’s general plan policies.

VIOLATIONS INCLUDE:

· Demolition of 1,538 seismically sound rent-controlled townhouses and their surrounding gardens.

· Not addressing livability issues associated with the 20- 30 year demolition and construction project, including: noise, air quality, and loss of open space.  The Project’s findings DO NOT MEET legal air quality standards.

· Failing to assess the seismic impact of the existing towers, nor providing for their retrofits and upgrades.  Additionally, no provisions exist for loss of open space and other unavoidable adverse impacts for tower residents.

· Slaughter of migrating birds by the Project’s shoreline windmills, and a general refusal to look at alternatives that could avoid the Project’s many impacts.

· The faulty reference to development as a “transit village”, since no third party assurances or funding sources are identified for transit and related work.  The addition of 6,342 parking places also contradicts the concept of a transit village.

The past few years have been brutally cruel to the poorest San Franciscans. They have watched access to health care erode, school staffing slashed, and a whole host of specialized community programs shut their doors due to budget cuts. For homeless people, it has meant the loss of six drop-in centers and exhaustingly long waits for shelters. Over 3,000 people now wait in line every day at the Saint Anthony’s Foundation for lunch. The situation is tense for many struggling to make ends meet.

Six months ago, San Francisco’s budget forecast was grim. Facing an almost $400 million shortfall, the Human Service Agency proposed shutting down two drop-in centers for homeless people serving communities of color. Residential treatment programs were going to get slaughtered…public benefits slashed…supportive housing decimated. We expected the closing of after school programs and violence prevention programs galore. This, after years of reductions, meant the breaking point for services poor people depend on for survival.

The Coalition on Homelessness and community members came together to analyze impacts through the Budget Justice Collaborative in our struggle to stave off reductions. Work was done to figure out what reductions could be absorbed without harming poor people. Community and labor worked together to come up with a host of alternative revenue ideas.

Luckily for the destitute of San Francisco, Newsom was gone. Interim Mayor Ed Lee held a community process, and actually listened. He prioritized safety net programs. He asked Fire, Police, and the nurses to give up their raises. The city garnered more sales tax than expected.

By the time the budget came to the Board of Supervisors, there was about $8 million left to come up with to stave off reductions to poor people. In addition, there was about $9 million in other items Board members wanted to fund, from capital projects…to halting privatization of security guards…to new Police Academy class…to trees. A year ago, the Board would have had to make up about $15 million instead. The Board accepted about $11 million in recommendations from Budget Analyst Harvey Rose, who identified wasteful spending. What the Board reduces, the Board can replace with other items. There was some other revenue as well, and it added up pretty well close to balancing out with all parties satisfied.

When it came to the end of the process, however, the consensus building that came out of the Mayor’s Office started to fall apart. Apparently, Chief of Staff Steve Kawa (a holdover from the Newsom years) did not get the memo that this was the new era of getting along. The office insisted, even though they had the funding, that they were going to contract out. This put many Board members in an awkward spot, since they would like to have the future support of labor unions, and would never get it if they contracted out. In the end, even though the Mayor’s Office had funding to cover it all, they still had to cut a bunch of stuff out of the budget. There was a transparent effort to pit the non-profits against the unions. However, since most non-profits are now unionized, this made divisiveness hard to manufacture.

When the budget finally balanced at 3am the morning after the last day of June, there were no cuts to supportive housing, no cuts to job training, after-school programs, nor violence prevention. It would have felt better for everyone involved if political game playing had not occured, but overall, the most vulnerable San Franciscans were protected. There were a lot of community stakeholders that helped make this happen. Supervisor Jane Kim really stepped up and resisted a lot of pressure, and Supervisor Carmen Chu put aside her own personal priorities and tried to work collectively with folks. In the end, we have a city budget that all San Franciscans should be proud of: a budget that has integrity and principles infused throughout, and a budget that–while not perfect from any one perspective–can be, quite simply, named “fair.”