Homeless center planned for Mission district spurs debate

A homeless encampment is established at Vermont and 15th streets in San Francisco, Calif. on Friday, April 14, 2017. A homeless encampment is established at Vermont and 15th streets in San Francisco, Calif. on Friday, April 14, 2017. Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle Buy photo Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Homeless center planned for Mission district spurs debate 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

An often raucous neighborhood meeting Monday evening in the Mission district drove one point loudly home — homelessness continues to be San Francisco’s most emotionally charged civic issue.

The two-hour session attracted several hundred people to the Mission Community Center, twice the number that could fit inside the auditorium. Most people who got seats seemed to support the plan being discussed, a temporary “navigation center” intended to move people out of the ramshackle tent colonies that line many neighborhood sidewalks. But critics lined up as well, insisting it would only make a bad situation worse.

“We resent that our desire to have safe streets is maligned ... we’ve got to do something about the crime,” said Kausar Wildman, a 22-year resident, referring to bike thefts and drug use associated with some people in tents. “This is not about being against the homeless. This is about protecting and preserving the neighborhood.”

The meeting was called by district supervisor Hillary Ronen to provide information on the center planned for 26th Street and South Van Ness. It would open in June, providing at least 100 transitional beds reserved for homeless people now in the Mission.

The corner holds an empty industrial building that is slated to be replaced with 157 residential units. The developer, Lennar Multifamily Communities, would allow the city to use the site rent-free until it can begin construction next year.

Ronen emphasized that she, like the critics, is dismayed by the current state of affairs.

“People are getting incredibly frustrated and worried about stepping over human waste in front of their doors, and discarded needles” and being accosted by people with mental problems, Ronen said in her opening remarks. “The crisis is at a peak point and I get it. I’m with you.”

But she and other city officials made the case that the navigation center would help to reduce the number of tents in view and, ultimately, people on the streets.

The advantage of such a center over a typical shelter, said one staffer with the city’s department of homelessness, is that residents have a month where they’re within safe and supervised conditions.

There are two centers at present, with another four in the planning stage. In addition to beds, the centers have case workers on hand to assess people’s needs and to try to find them housing or social services, from mental help to job training. The South Van Ness site would also have a large fenced outdoor area, which is intended to keep residents from loitering nearby during the day.

“People inside the navigation centers are away from the trauma of the streets,” said Jason Albertson, a clinical social worker with the Department of Homelessness. “It’s an opportunity to rest, and a good dose” of intensive case management.

The proactive arguments didn’t register with neighbors who said their children wouldn’t be safe. Or the manager of a nearby restaurant who said people camping on the block have come inside to steal food or panhandle customers. Or the ones who waved signs accusing Ronen and Mayor Ed Lee of selling out the Mission.

Supporters on hand were equally vociferous.

Several people who work near a current center at 1950 Mission St. said it has improved the block. One testified that he now has housing because of that navigation center.

As for safety concerns, “as a kid, I think that’s bull. That’s not true,” said Makayln Condon, a student at Everett Middle School who bicycles to class past the site. “People are scared of the navigation center because it’s change, but it will help get people off the streets.”

After an hour of public comments — alternating between supporters and opponents, each having their own separate line — Ronen thanked the crowd but voiced frustration of her own.

“If you want to criticize us, fine,” she said of the city’s efforts. “But if not this, then what? I have not heard one alternative” in terms of dealing with the situation that already exists.

“It’s a done deal, right? You’re not going to do anything about what we said,” shouted an opponent. There were other shouts, and then supporters started clapping and chanting “build the navigation center!”

Earlier, in the lobby, Ronen’s staff wrote down the names and email addresses of people who couldn’t get inside so that another meeting can be held. This one, Ronen promised, in a larger venue.

John King is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jking@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @johnkingsfchron