• Two shelter workers checked out the beds in one building of the Navigation Center, an innovation homeless program that opened on Mission in March. Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle
Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle
Image 2of 2
Roz Barnett (left) and Gregory Fairrer have heard of the new navigation center and hope it will save them from their encampment a few blocks away on Shotwell Street. San Francisco's new “navigation center” was unveiled to the public on Mission Street, a facility that will move entire encampments from the street and get them into permanent housing.
IMAGE 1 OF 2
Two shelter workers checked out the beds in one building of the Navigation Center, an innovation homeless program that opened on Mission in March.
The other day, Tenderloin community activist Randy Shaw had a chance to watch San Francisco’s homeless outreach program in action.
Shaw, executive director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, says a homeless man was passed out in a chair at a sandwich shop. As he watched a fire truck pull up, the firefighters got the man to his feet and steered him over to the street corner. Then they left.
“All they did was move him 20 feet,” Shaw said. “How much does that cost? And isn’t that a problem?”
Absolutely. Anyone in San Francisco who walks by homeless people sprawled on the street wonders why something isn’t being done to get them off the street.
Of course, you know the cynical reply to that — it’s San Francisco. Homeless people on the street have been a constant presence for decades. You might as well try to relocate the summer fog.
But quietly, behind the political scenes, an idea is forming that might address the problem. It’s bold, expensive and politically controversial, but you could say that about a lot of things in the city; beginning with housing. This is definitely worth considering.
The idea is to expand and reimagine the city’s homeless shelters to create actual housing, not one-night beds.

MORE BY C.W. NEVIUS

And once there, the homeless wouldn’t be told they’d have to be out by morning. They’d have a place to stay until a more permanent alternative could be found.
Critics will have concerns about keeping a large shelter clean and safe. But consider the alternative. Street encampments are already here, with no supervision or formal sanitation. And these are people who consistently and adamantly refuse the offer of a bed in one of the current shelters.
“When you are on the street and you have all your belongings in a bag or a cart nearby, a small room in the Tenderloin for one night doesn’t look that appealing,” said Supervisor Mark Farrell, who has held 10 City Hall hearings on homelessness. “If we want to be serious about getting people off the street, we have to give them a place where they can bring their spouse, belongings and dog.”
And that’s the easy part. The difficulty is to find a place to house everyone. City officials think that finding places for 1,500 people would dramatically transform the dynamics on the streets.
‘Right to shelter’
That sounds daunting, but it isn’t as if it has never been done. Because of its “right-to-shelter mandate,” New York City is required to provide shelter to anyone who requests it. It has turned out to be a massive undertaking.
The city’s Department of Housing Services says on its website that it regularly “provided temporary emergency shelter to more than 50,000 men, women and children.”
The New York plan is hardly a panacea. There have been complaints about conditions, services and quality of life. But again, compare that to someone in a sleeping bag on the sidewalk. Surely this would be an improvement.
San Francisco even has a model. The Navigation Center, which opened in March on Mission Street, is touted as an innovative shelter concept. As The Chronicle reported, the idea “is moving full encampments under one roof — dogs and couples and tents and all — and housing them there until permanent housing is found.”
Navigation Centers
Bevan Dufty, the mayor’s point person on homelessness, says there’s already talk of expanding, “We are talking with different neighborhoods about what it would be like to have a Navigation Center rather than a traditional shelter.”
But even supporters admit that the concept has plenty of problems. For starters, no neighborhood is likely to embrace a large-scale homeless facility nearby. Then there’s money. Farrell says it could run $80 million to $100 million and would almost certainly need a ballot measure for a sales tax increase.
But even skeptics say they’d be willing to listen to the idea. Paul Boden, a longtime San Francisco homeless advocate who is now director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, said: “I don’t think there’s ever been a time when the Homeless Coalition wouldn’t sit down and talk.”
What about the voters?
But, he says, the city has a history of much-hyped ideas with little substance.
“They change the color of the outreach team’s vest and call it a new program,” he said.
Fair enough, but it is hard not to think that this is a moment in the city when people are ready to listen to something fresh and new. And, Farrell says, that will only leave one problem.
“Do the voters of San Francisco have the appetite to do it?”
That’s hard to say. But we have to do something.
C.W. Nevius is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. His columns appear Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail: cwnevius@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @cwnevius