San Francisco is moving toward a significant shift in how it handles drug use within permanent supportive housing (PSH), housing designed to give formerly homeless residents stable homes alongside supportive services. A new proposal introduced by Supervisor Matt Dorsey would allow city‑funded PSH facilities to evict residents whose drug use becomes substantially disruptive to other tenants, a departure from the city’s longstanding approach under state law, which generally prohibits eviction “solely” for drug or alcohol use.
What the Proposal Would Change
Under California’s current framework, supportive housing providers must accept residents regardless of substance use, a principle tied to Housing First philosophies that prioritize immediate housing access over sobriety requirements. These models have shown success in reducing emergency shelter use and improving health stability by reducing barriers for people with serious substance use or mental health challenges.
Dorsey’s ordinance would shift part of that paradigm by making it city policy to expand “Recovery‑Oriented Permanent Supportive Housing.” New PSH developments seeking city funding would need to adopt rules allowing eviction if drug use leads to serious problems like violence, threats to safety, or repeated disruptive behavior. A companion requirement would survey residents about whether they prefer “drug‑tolerant” or “drug‑free” housing options.
Supporters argue this flexibility is necessary to create safer spaces for residents actively working toward sobriety. This argument draws on local polling showing a strong preference among some supportive housing tenants for environments free of drug use, and on the early success of projects like Hope House, a new sober homeless shelter that quickly reached capacity after opening.
Support and Criticism
Proponents contend the move responds to real challenges inside many PSH settings, where open drug use can make recovery difficult for those who want it and cause instability for neighbors. Advocates for sober housing say that offering options built around recovery could help residents achieve long‑term stability and better integrate into the surrounding community, a goal that some believe the current Housing First model doesn’t always accomplish.
Critics, however, see risks. Groups like the Coalition on Homelessness worry that creating new avenues for eviction could undermine the protective intent of supportive housing, pushing people back into homelessness rather than helping them recover. They also argue that even non‑disruptive drug use can be intertwined with complex health issues, including trauma and mental illness, and that evictions won’t address those root causes.
Dorsey leaders repeatedly emphasize that relapse alone wouldn’t trigger eviction, and that any decision to remove a tenant would have to follow clear, documented disruptions to others’ safety and well‑being. They also say the city would work to connect displaced tenants with treatment, alternative housing, or services that meet their needs.
What’s Next
The measure is expected to come before San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors for a vote in the coming months. If passed, it would mark a symbolic and practical change in city policy, aiming to balance Housing First inclusivity with a demand for environments that support recovery and long‑term stability.
