16th and Mission ‘homeless village’ closing so affordable housing can break ground – Mission Local

Report on the Closure of Mission Cabins and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

This report analyzes the closure of the Mission Cabins, a temporary housing initiative, and its transition to a permanent affordable housing project. The initiative’s lifecycle offers critical insights into urban strategies for achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). While the project provided essential temporary shelter, resident feedback highlights challenges related to governance and personal autonomy. The project’s closure marks a strategic shift towards more permanent solutions in line with SDG 11.1, while its community impact underscores the importance of integrated safety measures in urban development.

2.0 Project Overview: A Transitional Approach to Urban Poverty

The Mission Cabins project was a temporary shelter initiative designed to address immediate homelessness in San Francisco’s Mission district, directly contributing to SDG 1 (No Poverty).

• Objective: To provide safe, temporary accommodation for individuals experiencing homelessness, many with long-term ties to the local community.
• Scale: The site consisted of 60 individual tiny homes.
• Duration: The project operated for 18 months before its scheduled closure.
• Operator: The site was managed by Five Keys, a non-profit organization.
• Succession Plan: The closure facilitates the construction of a permanent affordable housing development, advancing SDG 11.1 (Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing).

3.0 Resident Experiences and Contributions to Well-being (SDG 3 & SDG 10)

The project had a mixed but significant impact on the health, well-being, and reduction of inequalities for its residents.

3.1 Positive Outcomes

1. Improved Health and Safety (SDG 3): Residents were moved from unsheltered conditions into a secure environment, protecting them from the elements and street-level dangers.
2. Pathway to Stability: For individuals like John Debella, who had been unhoused for over 25 years, the cabins provided the stability needed to address substance use and secure permanent housing.
3. Community Connection: The initiative prioritized individuals with ties to the Mission, allowing them to remain in a familiar community, which is crucial for social and mental well-being.

3.2 Reported Challenges

Resident feedback indicates areas for improvement in future models to better align with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

• Restrictive Policies: Residents expressed frustration with strict rules, including prohibitions on eating in rooms and lack of personal keys, which limited autonomy.
• Governance and Accountability: Multiple residents reported allegations of unauthorized room entry and theft of personal items by staff, raising concerns about institutional accountability.
• Dignity and Respect: The feeling of being “policed” was a common sentiment, highlighting a need for operational models that are more centered on resident dignity.

4.0 Community Integration and Sustainable Urban Spaces (SDG 11)

The Mission Cabins project serves as a case study in managing the social dynamics of urban development and creating safe, inclusive communities as outlined in SDG 11.

• Initial Opposition: The project initially faced strong opposition from local residents and a neighboring elementary school due to safety concerns.
• “Good Neighbor Policy”: In response, operator Five Keys implemented a comprehensive security and sanitation plan, providing 24/7 patrols to manage the surrounding public spaces.
• Achieving Safe Public Spaces (SDG 11.7): This policy was highly effective, leading to a marked improvement in block safety, cleanliness, and order. Former opponents now credit the program with enhancing the quality of life in the neighborhood.
• Concern Over Closure: Neighbors now express apprehension that the cessation of the program and its associated security will lead to a degradation of public safety, demonstrating the project’s positive impact on the wider community.

5.0 Transition to Permanent Solutions and Future Outlook

The conclusion of the Mission Cabins project represents a strategic pivot from temporary relief to long-term, sustainable housing solutions.

1. Advancing SDG 11.1: The primary reason for the site’s closure is to begin construction on permanent affordable housing, a direct and critical action toward achieving sustainable urban development targets.
2. Continuity of Services: The loss of 68 shelter beds is being partially offset by the opening of 62 new spots at another local shelter, Mission Action.
3. Replicating the Model: The city and Five Keys are actively seeking a new location to redeploy the cabin model, indicating that its role as a transitional tool is considered valuable despite its challenges.
4. Lessons for Future Institutions (SDG 16): The success of the “good neighbor policy” and the challenges in resident relations provide a dual lesson for future initiatives: effective community integration is possible, but internal governance must be transparent and accountable to be truly sustainable and just.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the Mission Cabins and the transition to affordable housing addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on homelessness, health, urban living conditions, and community safety.

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article directly relates to this goal by addressing homelessness, which is a manifestation of extreme poverty. The Mission Cabins project is a social protection system aimed at providing basic shelter for the unhoused.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The well-being of the homeless population is a central theme. The article touches on substance abuse, as one resident was “struggling with fentanyl use,” and highlights how stable shelter can contribute to better health outcomes and personal recovery.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most prominent SDG in the article. It discusses the provision of temporary shelter (tiny homes), the transition to permanent “affordable housing,” and the overall management of urban spaces to make them safe and inclusive for all residents, including the most vulnerable.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article connects to this goal through its discussion of safety, security, and community relations. It describes efforts to reduce crime and drug activity in the neighborhood through a “good neighbor policy” and addresses residents’ desire to live in a safe environment.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

• Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.
  • Explanation: The entire article revolves around this target. The Mission Cabins provided temporary housing for people “living on the streets.” The closure of this site is explicitly to make way for the construction of “affordable housing.” The relocation of residents to single-room-occupancy hotels and other “permanent housing” is a direct effort to achieve this goal.
• Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.
  • Explanation: The article provides a case study in John Debella, who was “struggling with fentanyl use” before moving into the cabins. The stability provided by the shelter helped him, demonstrating how housing initiatives can support individuals dealing with substance abuse, which aligns with strengthening prevention and treatment.
• Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
  • Explanation: The initiative to move “long-term unhoused” individuals like Antrinette Jenkins and John Debella (who was on the streets for over 25 years) into shelter and then permanent housing is a direct intervention to reduce poverty in its most extreme form.
• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
  • Explanation: This target is relevant through the article’s focus on creating a safer environment. Antrinette Jenkins expresses a desire to move away from an “area of drug activity and crime.” Furthermore, the “good neighbor policy” implemented by Five Keys, which included “round-the-clock security,” cleaning graffiti, and moving drug users away, was a direct measure to improve safety and reduce crime in the neighborhood, as confirmed by residents like Naomi Fox and Aaron Wojack.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

• For Target 11.1 (Access to Housing):
  • Quantitative Indicator: The number of shelter beds available. The article states the Mission Cabins had “60 tiny homes,” and its closure removes “68 shelter spots.” It also notes that “62 additional spots are set to open at Mission Action,” another shelter. These numbers measure the city’s capacity for temporary housing.
  • Qualitative Indicator: The successful transition of residents from homelessness to permanent housing. The article mentions that “Most residents… have already moved out” and that John Debella “had already been relocated to permanent housing.” The personal stories of residents getting “out of the cold, out of the water” serve as a powerful qualitative measure of progress.
• For Target 3.5 (Substance Abuse Treatment):
  • Qualitative Indicator: Personal success stories of recovery. Santiago Lerma mentions seeing “really good success stories” and people he thought were “too far gone” who are now “doing well and healthy.” John Debella’s story of deciding to get stable for his dog while struggling with fentanyl is a specific example of the positive impact of the housing program on substance abuse issues.
• For Target 16.1 (Safety and Security):
  • Qualitative Indicator: Perceptions of community safety. Neighbors like Naomi Fox and Aaron Wojack, who were initially opposed to the cabins, stated that the security measures made the block cleaner and safer. Fox noted, “Having the guards there has been a positive thing for our block.” Their worry that “the quality of life on the streets might suffer” after the cabins close indicates a measured improvement in perceived safety during the project’s operation.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: missionlocal.org