In recent weeks, the San Francisco Chronicle has invented a mythical history of San Francisco’s homeless problem. The paper’s fundamental premise---that long tolerant San Franciscans now support tough measures to remove homeless persons from city sidewalks---is contradicted by strong voter support for restricting problem street behavior since 1991. Its second claim---that conflict between homeless advocates and city leaders has forestalled a solution---ignores the long history of city leaders implementing homeless policies despite advocate opposition. Third, the paper mistakenly suggests that the Newsom Administration is shifting policy toward criminalizing homelessness, when police citations of homeless people have been a constant in the city since the Jordan Administration. And the paper’s fourth and perhaps most dishonest argument---that preventing people from lying on sidewalks will “solve” homelessness---ignores the most fundamental truth of all: society’s refusal to invest the money to provide alternatives to people living on the street, particularly the costly mental health facilities where many of those most complained about belong.

The San Francisco Chronicle has been quite busy creating a fictional local history for its readers. It’s a world where long-suffering residents are finally saying, “Enough is Enough,” where solutions are stalled by conflict between political leaders and advocates, and where increased police enforcement and the passage of a law banning sitting on the sidewalk would put an end to the scourge of widespread visible homelessness.

Having witnessed San Francisco’s homeless problem since it began in 1982, I know what has really happened. But had I recently arrived in the city, the Chronicle’s re-imagining of the past would seem quite convincing.

Let’s start with the notion that long tolerant San Franciscans are now saying “Enough is Enough.”

In the 1991 San Francisco Mayor’s race, former police chief Frank Jordan won an upset victory over incumbent Art Agnos running on a platform that the city was being too lax in dealing with homeless persons in public areas. The success of Jordan’s “enough is enough” campaign was followed by a series of ballot initiatives to control panhandling, sitting on sidewalks, and other street behavior.

All but one of the Jordan measures easily passed. San Franciscans have been supporting tough laws against homeless persons for over fifteen years ---this is hardly some “new” development, as the Chronicle’s C.W. Nevius has suggested.

Second, the Chronicle’s October 11 headline claim that “homeless advocates and the city’s leaders need to stop yelling at each other and work toward a solution” is almost laughable.

Homeless advocates, usually identified with the Coalition on Homelessness, have unsuccessfully opposed almost every major mayoral initiative on homelessness since Frank Jordan became mayor. Advocates opposed all of Jordan’s punitive ballot measures, opposed the continuation of police enforcement of homelessness under Mayors Brown and Newsom, opposed Care not Cash, opposed the closure of the St. Boniface Shelter---the list could go on and on.

And now Chuck Nevius wants readers to believe that advocates have prevented city leaders from instituting solutions? What planet has he been living on?

Third, the Chronicle has advanced the demonstrably false notion that the Newsom Administration is shifting from a “Housing First” approach to one that relies on criminalizing problem street behavior.

Had the Chronicle bothered to cover the August 31, 2006 report released by Religious Witness with Homeless People, it would have known that 31,230 ‘quality of life’ citations were issued by the SFPD during the first two and a half years of the Newsom Administration for behaviors like sleeping outdoors or possessing an open container.

San Francisco spent $5.7 million implementing these citations. This conflicts with the Chronicle’s premise that, to date, the police have not addressed problems street behavior.

Due to the traditional media’s blackout of the police role in addressing homelessness, many San Franciscans incorrectly assumed that the Newsom program consisted entirely of washing homeless person’s feet at Project Homeless Connect, and giving them quality housing through Care not Cash.

But the Newsom homeless program always had a major police component. The same was true under Mayor Brown, who also combined the carrot and stick. And neither Tom Ammiano in his 1999 mayoral campaign nor Matt Gonzalez in 2003 pledged to eliminate police enforcement of quality of life crimes, because these candidates understood that the San Francisco electorate insists on such enforcement.

Every serious mayoral candidate knows that Agnos lost re-election in 1991 because he was perceived as too “soft” on the homeless. The same quotes the Chronicle has run in recent weeks about “enough is enough” can be found in the pages of the Chronicle and Examiner during the 1991 mayoral campaign.

In fact, the Chronicle had a columnist during that time, Adair Lara, who wrote about how sheepish she felt as a Noe Valley liberal supporting ex-police chief Jordan. But San Franciscans were sick and tired of seeing people sprawled out on sidewalks in 1991, and attitudes have not changed.

This gets us to the Chronicle’s worst offense: its argument that getting problem people off the sidewalks, and vigorously enforcing quality of life crimes (which is already occurring) will “solve” homelessness.

Let’s cut right to the chase. San Francisco has perhaps 2000 people who either cannot pay rent, or have mental problems that prevent them from living in an SRO. This is the group that is often impervious to services, and that the public most wants off the street.

There are only two places for these people to live, other than on the sidewalks.

We can imprison them, but the jails have no room for such nonviolent offenders. And if we build more jails to house such offenders, sentences for public urination or panhandling would have to be extended for years to prevent them from quickly returning to the streets.

Or we can build more mental institutions, which is the obvious solution for the many people on the street who are clearly disoriented and need access to round the clock care.

Paul Hogarth recently reported on an October 10 Supervisors hearing on the shift of 14 acute psychiatric emergency beds at SF General Hospital to an offsite unit run by the nonprofit Progress Foundation. The cost of the beds at SF General was $1.37 million, while the Progress cost was $1.23 million.

We are talking nearly $100,000 per bed. While there is turnover, this means that it would cost roughly $200 million a year to shift 2000 homeless people from San Francisco sidewalks to the mental facilities they need.

And this does not cover the tens of millions needed to build the necessary facilities.

The United States will not blink before spending this amount in Iraq, or on tax breaks for the wealthy, but the political environment would have to dramatically change before $200 million is annually allocated to get San Francisco’s homeless mentally ill off the streets.

So where is the Chronicle’s end game? Unable to live in SRO’s, and with prison and mental facilities unavailable, where do they expect those bothering people on the sidewalks to go?

Maybe the Chronicle figures that a hard line in San Francisco will force the mentally ill homeless to no longer hospitable Berkeley. Or that if we just “keep them moving” they will soon die from exposure and malnutrition.

But let’s not make believe that passing laws against certain behavior will “solve” homelessness. That takes federal money, and a degree of political will unseen since widespread visible homeless emerged under President Reagan 25 years ago.

Send comments to rshaw@beyondchron.org