SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) -- Momentum is building at San Francisco City Hall, where a majority of supervisors are backing a controversial proposal to expand drug-free supportive housing. Critics, however, warn it could lead to more evictions and strain the city’s already limited affordable housing syst em. At a committee meeting with public comment on Thursday, three of San Francisco’s 11 supervisors voted in favor of an ordinance that would amend the administrative code to expand drug-free permanent supportive housing options for people experiencing homelessness. The proposal, led by Supervisor Matt Dorsey, would prioritize housing that prohibits on-site illicit drug use and limit city funding for housing models that allow drug use, with some exceptions. It would also require the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing to survey residents on whether they prefer drug-free or drug-tolerant environments and develop a plan to meet that demand. Outside City Hall, Dorsey led a rally in support of the ordinance alongside recovery advocates and community leaders. “Drug-free supportive housing is co-sponsored by myself, Board President Rafael Mandelman, Supervisors Sherrill, Sauter, Mahmood, and Wong, so we should have clear sailing,” Dorsey said. Dorsey added that at least six supervisors already support the ordinance, along with San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “I will always stand in support of the recovery community,” Jenkins said. “I am tired, as we all are, of seeing San Franciscans die each and every day on our streets and in poor permanent supportive housing. We have an obligation as city leaders to save lives.” Supporters said the measure would create a voluntary, drug-free housing option for residents seeking stability and recovery-focused environments. “I want to be clear about what this legislation is not,” said Amber Richmond, a drug recovery advocate. “It’s not punishment, it does not force abstinence, it does not replace harm reduction. It simply creates one more voluntary option, a drug-free housing option for those who want that.” Richmond also emphasized the needs of residents who are not struggling with addiction but currently live in environments where drug use is prevalent. “What about the people who are not struggling with addiction but have no realistic housing options where drug use is far too often present?” she said. “Do their needs not matter too?” However, critics argue the ordinance could have unintended consequences. Some believe it would require evictions after more than one instance of drug use, potentially pushing vulnerable residents back onto the streets. Others warn it could limit funding for affordable housing developments at a time when resources are already stretched thin. “What are we saying? It’s OK for rich people, homeowners, to access housing if they do drugs, but poor people can’t?” one public commenter said during the hearing. “That’s classism.” Advocates opposing the measure are calling for amendments, including the creation of a pilot program for recovery housing that would prioritize treatment and alternative options instead of eviction. “But when you bring this bill forward, you better make sure that it’s strong, that it’s clear,” another advocate said. “Because we’re not asking anymore — we’re demanding.” Thursday’s committee vote does not mean the ordinance has passed, but it does move the proposal forward. The full Board of Supervisors is expected to hold a first vote on May 5, with a final vote scheduled for May 12. ...read more read less