Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Justice Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Justice Center proposal faces opposition from homelessness advocates
Summary
The proposed Community Justice Center—intended to co-locate judicial adjudication and social services to address low-level offenses—drew criticism from homelessness and advocacy groups who said the plan lacks attached treatment services and risks criminalizing homeless people.
The Rules Committee heard conflicting testimony on a proposed ordinance to create a San Francisco Community Justice Center to address misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies in neighborhoods including the Tenderloin and South of Market.
Proponents described the center as a co-located court and service hub intended to improve outcomes for people whose offenses stem from mental health and substance-abuse issues. Officials said the proposal would authorize real-estate arrangements, tenant improvements and appropriations for FY 2008–09 and that federal matching funds (nearly $1 million anticipated) were expected to augment local resources.
Advocates including Jennifer Friedenbach of the Coalition on Homelessness and Eli Hernandez, a homeless advocate, opposed the proposal. Friedenbach said the ordinance contains no actual treatment services or committed housing and that the roughly $3 million budgeted (as stated in testimony) would fund coordinators and case managers rather than expanded treatment or housing; she warned the court could increase police use of misdemeanor citations such as §647(j) lodging, further criminalizing homeless people. Hernandez told the committee the city should redirect funds to treatment and housing initiatives rather than create another court-based response.
Speakers asked for clarity on who would execute leases and the city official authority; Amy Brown was identified in the hearing as the director of real estate (Deputy City Administrator) who would execute property agreements. After discussion and recognition of advocacy concerns, supervisors filed the item without objection; no final action or appropriation was adopted at the hearing.
