South of Market's SRO Sandwich

After a long series of historical smackdowns, San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood has struggled to “get healthy” as a community. The recent Plaza Hotel redevelopment controversy, in which 106 new “affordable housing” units were tapped by the Mayor for halfway housing, marks yet another hurdle, according to some long-time residents.
Antoinetta Stadlman has lived at the Baldwin House, one of the neighborhood’s many Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) hotels, for thirteen years. Several years ago when the owner neglected to make lighting and safety improvements or evict tenants terrorizing other residents, she organized a small claims suit, which she won. Each tenant-plaintiff received a $5000 settlement, the improvements were completed, and the troublemakers were evicted.

Ms. Stadlman believes that designating the Plaza as Direct Access Housing (DAH)—one element of Mayor Newsom’s homelessness reduction program—is a step backward for the neighborhood. Though she acknowledges that SRO residency inevitably means living with “at least three or four people who are mentally so far gone, they can’t keep even track of their keys,” she doesn’t think that the concentration of at-risk residents at the Plaza is a good idea for SOMA. A community leader since 1992, Ms. Stadlman had hoped that the new housing units, originally earmarked for low-income residents with no other specifications, would help mitigate both criminal activity and housing shortages.

The nearby Bayanihan House, for example—a newly refurbished SRO—offers single- or double-occupancy rooms for people whose incomes do not exceed $27,000. Rent is $515 a month and includes utilities.

“More and more of the non-profit housing has to fulfill one of the ‘categories,’” Ms. Stadlman says. “It used to be low-income housing with the only requirement to move-in being income level. But that was the only regulation. Now you have to be severely mentally ill, have addiction problems, or be dually diagnosed [to get into the new SROs]. It takes housing off the market for ordinary people who just happen to be poor.”

Ms. Stadlman does not begrudge the people who require supportive housing, but contends that an area already battling widespread crime—crack dealings, robbery and prostitution, among other things—seems an inappropriate choice of location for people working on overcoming these issues.

Erin Carson, Project Manager for Public Initiatives Development Corporation, the non-profit entity that oversees the Plaza Apartments as a subsidiary of the Redevelopment Association, does not see the Mission and Howard location as a poor choice for supportive housing.

“[Addiction recovery] is a challenge in any location. The temptations are there throughout the city. People who are seeking drugs come in to SOMA and the Tenderloin from outlying areas. Geography doesn’t make much of a difference.”

When one community member found a Direct Access to Housing document online describing the categories of residents that would be eligible at the Plaza, the “not in my backyard” machine went into full swing. She and others assert that DAH is inviting “murderers, child molesters and fire starters” to move in down the street.

“The PIDC [along with the residential management and service agencies] will draft a selection process, including a 10-year criminal background check.” Ms. Carson says. “If John Steward Company determines that a person will be detrimental to the community, they will forego their application. Criminal background does not preclude that people would be excluded from the community.”

Combined with the nearby Tenderloin, the “Sixth Street corridor,” which stretches from Market to Harrison Streets, currently boasts the highest concentration of sex offenders in the city. At the same time, SOMA is one of the city’s fastest growing gentrification areas because of its proximity to downtown. Blocks away from some of America’s most expensive square footage, SOMA hosts over thirty SROs, which have historically provided inexpensive housing to both transient and low-income, permanent residents.

Mike Grison, a Project Manager with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, describes the original Plaza Hotel as “a severely blighted two-story property – a very old, very poorly maintained building potentially in danger of collapsing in an earthquake.” With regard to community opposition to hosting supportive housing in an already depressed area, Mr. Grisso contends that it’s the right project for the right neighborhood.

“A lot of the social services are in SOMA and the Tenderloin. It makes sense for a lot of people who live there.”

But why not build a Plaza-like structure in Pacific Heights, for example?

“No units are possible in Pac Heights because there are no lots that are zoned for housing like this. Plus the city requires that SROs be built to replace SROs [as was the case with the Plaza Hotel].”

Mr. Grisso adds, “In terms of buying land and putting up a new building, it would cost ten times as much in Pac Heights.”

But neither the SOMPAC nor the Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Grisso says, can ultimately decide the fate of the Plaza.

“The Committee is an advisory group to the Agency; they don’t have any formal authority over the project area. But we do listen to their advice. They are the community’s voice to the Redevelopment Agency. Most redevelopments don’t have a community committee.”

Ms. Stadlman says that the Mayor’s plans for the Plaza appeared out of the blue, without any public forum and/or input from the council of community members. According to Ms. Stadlman, community representatives from SOMPAC worked for three years on the Plaza Hotel’s demolition and reconstruction plans. They recommended allocation of half a million dollars for the hotel’s startup costs. Then, at a recent meeting, the Redevelopment Agency said that the Mayor had requested that the hotel offer Direct Access to Housing. (DAH partners with on-site support agencies to ensure that SRO residents receive the services they need. Many have active substance abuse disorders, mental health conditions, complex medical problems, and other difficulties.)

Ms. Carson says that SOMPAC and any interested community member is welcome to contact her with their concerns.

“I think they do have to be a part in the process. I’ve been at every housing meeting and many general PAC meetings. It’s a point of contention, when this happened, and I came to the PAC and I give them every piece of info I have. Their opportunity to participate started at that moment, when they could talk to me at meetings. I’m doing that in a very proactive manner. There is participation available.”

For more information on the redevelopment project visit www.sompac.com.

TIMELINE

A brief history of San Francisco's South of Market Area

1850's
Chinese farmers reclaim marshlands and plant vegetables, which are sold throughout the city.

1858
Salt marshes are filled in when the hills north of Market near Union Square are leveled.

1860's
Gold Rush Era: single men move into inexpensive hotels and lodging houses, many of which are located along the 6th street corridor.

1869
Commerce increases when the Transatlantic Railroad is links local businesses with the rest of the country. Thousands of immigrant workers arrive from the East Coast.

1880's
SOMA flourishes as a vibrant retail district and working-class neighborhood.

1906
The Califonria Earthquake and subsequent fires destroy much of the SOMA area. A family housing shortage ensues. Low-income housing also becomes increasingly difficult to find.

1892-1933
The Great Depression marks increased unemployment South of Market. Social service organizations become prevalent in the neighborhood.

1962
A city vote to build BART redirects businesses to the "urban core" rather than the suburbs.

1970's-1980's
Millions of square feet of office space are built in San Francisco's downtown area, increasing SOMA's desirability as a residential area.

1989
The Loma Prieta Earthquacke damages scores of buildings, including 197 Single Resident Occupancy hotel units that provided low-income housing.

1990
The SF Board of Supervisors adopts the SOM Earthquake Recovery and Redevelopment Plan to acquire and repair damaged buildings, replace lost residential hotel units and restore family housing.

1997
A Project Area Committee (PAC) including local residents and community members is elected to advise the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on transitioning the project area to "full redevelopment status."

2005
A Project Plan Amendment is introduced to identify and address blight in the project area. The plan also includes provisions for eminent domain seizures.