Newsom’s Veto of Sober Housing Bill Sparks a Backlash in SF

After Gov. Gavin Newsom last week vetoed an initiative aimed at expanding sober housing in California, San Francisco supervisors are proposing new legislation that would all but bar new city money from funding supportive housing developments that don’t require residents to be drug-free.

“Today, San Francisco’s exclusively drug-tolerant [permanent supportive housing] model is blamed for disproportionate rates of fatal overdoses, chaotic and too often violent

neighborhood conditions, and a wide range of drug-driven public safety challenges,” Supervisor Matt Dorsey said in a statement. “It’s time to deliver the drug-free options [permanent supportive housing] residents have long been asking for.”

For about a decade, California has required supportive housing programs that utilize state funding to follow a “Housing First” framework, which aims to remove barriers to housing by requiring programs to accept tenants regardless of their credit score, criminal history or drug use, among other conditions.

The San Francisco legislation, co-sponsored by Board President Rafael Mandelman, aims to expand the availability of drug-free supportive housing in the city, despite Newsom’s veto of the state bill.

Assemblymember Matt Haney’s AB 255, which would have allowed cities and counties to use up to 10% of state supportive housing dollars to fund sober living centers, was returned unsigned by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30.

Haney and other San Francisco leaders have long advocated for the expansion of state-funded sober living programs, which many believe are prohibited by California’s Housing First framework.

The California Interagency Council on Homelessness, which oversees the implementation of those guidelines in the state, said the intention is to provide housing as a starting place for all people, including those who want to seek recovery, instead of using housing as a “reward” for achieving recovery.

Many housing providers have interpreted the framework to mean they could not bar a new tenant, or evict an existing one, if they were not sober — which Haney said creates living environments that make it difficult for many people trying to get sober.

“If you know you need to get off of and away from drugs, you shouldn’t be forced into housing where drug use is allowed and where recovery is not supported,” he said. “Some folks won’t go into housing because they know that it actually is dangerous for them because they’re still experiencing an addiction. … This isn’t about having zero tolerance to drug use. It’s about having environments where recovery is explicitly supported, and that is the goal.”

But according to Newsom, jurisdictions can already use state dollars to “support recovery housing.”

“That was news to most cities and counties,” Haney said after AB 255 was vetoed.

Newsom said in his veto message that he believes “recovery-focused” housing is essential, but that Haney’s legislation would require the state to establish a separate — and costly — certification and oversight process. The Senate Appropriations Committee estimated that creating the new regulatory system would have cost more than $4 million in its first year.

Instead, he pointed to guidance the California Interagency Council on Homelessness published in July, which allows jurisdictions to access state funding for recovery housing already.

According to the guidance, recovery housing programs “may include sobriety requirements; however, the decision to pursue sobriety must be made by the participant.”

The idea, it said, is that choice is central to the Housing First framework — “This includes the choice to participate in recovery housing and sober living programs, programs with a focus on implementing harm reduction methods, or other programs.”

“People using substances or in recovery from substance use disorders have diverse needs, goals, and interests and should be provided with meaningful choice within the housing and services options available to them,” the guidance continues.

After the veto, Haney and San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, who co-sponsored the bill, both said they were disappointed but would continue to create housing “across the spectrum” at the city level.

The legislation announced Tuesday appears poised to do just that.

Dorsey said he and Mandelman — with support from Supervisors Stephen Sherrill and Danny Sauter — would propose legislation to prevent San Francisco officials from using city dollars to open new non-sober housing.

The city already generates independent revenue for sober housing through Proposition C, which voters passed in 2018.

Lurie said that since he took office, “We’ve stood up over 300 new beds, the right kind of beds, treatment beds, recovery beds.”

He’s not offered a new drug-free supportive program that provides the sort of permanent housing that Dorsey’s proposal would apply to, though.

If passed, it would prohibit the use of city funds for drug-tolerant permanent supportive housing sites and more clearly separate the models of permanent supportive housing projects in the city.

According to Dorsey’s office, there would be three: state-funded housing that prohibits evictions of tenants found using illegal drugs; drug-free sites that disallow use of illegal drugs but allow legal substances like alcohol and marijuana; and sober, recovery-oriented housing.

The effort — and sobriety restrictions on housing in general — could invite more pushback from homelessness advocates, like Coalition on Homelessness Executive Director Jennifer Friedenbach, who opposed the less-restrictive Assembly bill.

“Some people are at a place where they would love to have sober housing, so let’s do that, but let’s not rob Peter to pay Paul,” she said. “Let’s find funding for that and expand it so there are those options available for people.”

Haney pushed back on Friedenbach’s assertion that his state bill would have carved out a portion of already-thin funding exclusively for those in recovery. Dorsey’s forthcoming city legislation, on the other hand, would appear to do so.

KQED’s Adhiti Bandlamudi contributed to this report.